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. It discloses key behavioral traits: the two-stage process (individual opinions then anonymous ranking), cost level ('medium cost'), and the effect of 'conclave_select'. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'street cred' scores entail, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The sentences are efficient, but the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be integrated more seamlessly, and some phrasing ('medium cost') is slightly vague, slightly reducing conciseness.

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 complexity (multi-stage ranking process), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It covers the process, parameters, and return overview, but lacks details on output structure or error cases, which the output schema might handle, making it adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 explains 'question' as 'the question to ask the conclave' and 'tier' with values and default, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail format constraints for 'question' or fully explain 'tier' implications beyond the list, resulting in partial compensation for the low coverage.

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 'queries the conclave with peer rankings' and specifies it involves 'Stage 1 + 2' processing, which distinguishes it from simple query tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'conclave_full' or 'conclave_quick' in terms of ranking methodology, leaving some ambiguity about sibling 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 for usage: it mentions 'medium cost' and explains when to use it (for getting individual opinions and aggregate rankings). It also notes that a custom conclave via 'conclave_select' overrides the tier parameter, offering some alternative guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or comparisons to specific siblings like 'conclave_estimate' or 'conclave_quick'.

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