Conclave MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it lists models grouped by tier, specifies that numbers are stable with defined ranges per tier, and describes the return format as a numbered list. It doesn't mention aspects like rate limits or authentication needs, but covers essential behavior adequately for a read-only tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by supporting details in bullet points and a returns section. Every sentence earns its place by adding specific information about tiers, number stability, and usage context without any redundant or vague statements.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is complete. It explains the purpose, behavioral context (stable numbers per tier), usage with 'conclave_select', and return format. The output schema likely details the structure, so the description doesn't need to exhaustively list return values, making it well-rounded for this context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics, explaining the numbered list structure and tier groupings. This adds value beyond the schema by clarifying what the tool returns, which is helpful given the presence of an output schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'all available models with selection numbers', specifying it shows models from all tiers with unique numbers. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning these numbers are used with 'conclave_select' to create custom conclaves, providing specific differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context by explaining that the numbers are used with 'conclave_select' for custom conclave creation, giving a specific when-to-use scenario. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like 'conclave_quick' or 'conclave_full', which could help further differentiate usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.