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 states the tool checks status using a config file, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), what the output format might be, error handling, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 core purpose without any wasted words. It directly states what the tool does and the key dependency (.ploi.json config), making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (a status-checking tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the status output includes (e.g., success/failure, deployment stages), error conditions, or how it interacts with siblings like 'deploy_project'. This leaves gaps for effective agent use.

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 100%, with the parameter 'project_path' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the path should contain '.ploi.json', which is already covered by the schema's description. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Check' and the resource 'deployment status for the current project', specifying it uses a '.ploi.json config'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'deploy_project' or 'get_site_logs', which might also relate to deployment or status checking.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a .ploi.json file), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'deploy_project' (for initiating deployment) or 'get_site_logs' (for logs). This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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