Ploi MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'search' and 'partial match supported' (via the schema), but lacks details on behavioral traits: e.g., whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), what the output format is (no output schema), if there are rate limits, authentication needs, or how results are returned (e.g., pagination). For a search tool with no annotations, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('search for a site by domain name') and adds necessary context ('across all servers'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (a search operation with no output schema and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output values, error handling, or behavioral context like search scope or limitations. For a tool that likely returns structured data, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'domain' parameter documented as supporting partial match. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples, format details, or constraints). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 action ('search') and target resource ('site by domain name'), specifying it operates 'across all servers'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_site' (likely for specific retrieval) and 'list_sites' (likely for listing all sites), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated from siblings.

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 implies usage when searching for a site by domain, with 'across all servers' suggesting it's for broad searches. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'get_site' (which might require a site ID) or 'list_sites' (for unfiltered listing), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is contextually implied but not clearly articulated.

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