Conclave MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's 'Fast and cheap', queries 'all conclave models in parallel', returns 'individual responses' without synthesis, and mentions the interaction with conclave_select for custom conclaves. It doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, but provides substantial operational context.

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 perfectly structured and concise: purpose statement first, key characteristics next, behavioral notes, then parameter details in labeled sections. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. The use of sections (Args, Returns) enhances readability.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does an excellent job explaining parameters and behavioral context. The existence of an output schema means it doesn't need to detail return values. It could mention more about error cases or prerequisites, but covers the essential context well for this query tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for both parameters: 'question' is described as 'The question to ask the conclave', and 'tier' gets detailed explanation of values ('premium', 'standard', 'budget') with defaults and the override rule when custom conclave is active. This goes well beyond the bare 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Query the conclave for quick parallel opinions') and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying 'Stage 1 only', 'Fast and cheap', 'No peer ranking or synthesis', and 'Good for getting diverse perspectives quickly'. It explicitly differentiates from tools like conclave_full or conclave_ranked that likely involve synthesis or ranking.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Good for getting diverse perspectives quickly') and when not to use it ('Stage 1 only', 'No peer ranking or synthesis'). It also mentions the alternative of using a custom conclave via conclave_select, though it could be more explicit about other sibling alternatives like conclave_full or conclave_ranked.

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