Ploi MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Get details'), without covering critical aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, potential error conditions (e.g., invalid IDs), authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'details' includes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get details'), making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 (retrieving specific site details), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' entail (e.g., configuration, status, metadata), potential side effects, or error handling. For a tool with no structured behavioral or output information, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 100%, with both parameters ('server_id' and 'site_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying ID-based lookup, which is already covered. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific site'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_sites' (which lists multiple sites) and 'find_site_by_domain' (which finds by domain rather than ID). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the ID-based lookup, which could slightly improve specificity.

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 server and site IDs), contrast with 'list_sites' for browsing or 'find_site_by_domain' for domain-based searches, or specify use cases like retrieving configuration details. This leaves the agent with minimal context for selection.

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