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 so well. It discloses key behavioral traits: the custom selection persists until server restart or conclave_reset, the first model becomes chairman, and it references sibling tools (conclave_models, conclave_reset) for context. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error handling, but covers persistence and structure adequately.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage details, persistence, args, returns, and an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the example efficiently illustrates the tool's behavior.

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 complexity (custom conclave creation with persistence), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, behavioral traits, and includes an example, making it sufficient for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, which it does excellently. It explains the 'models' parameter as comma-separated model numbers, specifies the first number is chairman and the rest are members, provides an example format, and clarifies the mapping to specific models (e.g., model #31 = deepseek-r1).

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: 'Create a custom conclave from model numbers' with specific actions like selecting models and designating a chairman. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on custom selection rather than configuration, estimation, or resetting.

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 when to use this tool: to create a custom conclave from specific model numbers, with the first model as chairman. It mentions persistence until server restart or conclave_reset, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like conclave_quick or conclave_ranked.

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