Ploi MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify critical aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'all sites' entails (e.g., active only, includes suspended). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 unnecessary words. It wastes no space on repetition or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, exemplifying ideal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits like pagination or error handling, nor does it guide usage relative to siblings. While minimalism can suffice for very basic tools, here it lacks context needed for reliable agent operation, especially with no annotations to fill gaps.

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 the single parameter 'server_id' documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the server context, which the schema already covers. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting without description enhancement.

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 ('List') and resource ('all sites on a server'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_site' (single site) and 'find_site_by_domain' (search by domain), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The description is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation for a perfect score.

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 like needing a server ID, nor does it compare with siblings like 'get_site' for single sites or 'find_site_by_domain' for domain-based searches. The agent must infer usage from context alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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