Synapse 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 of behavioral disclosure. However, it offers no information about what the tool does beyond 'query'—such as whether it's read-only, destructive, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with 4 parameters and 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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and to the point, though this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness. Every word earns its place, but the place is insufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 (4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and multiple sibling tools), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'entities' are, how querying works, what the parameters do, or how this differs from similar tools. While an output schema exists, the description provides no context to interpret it, making it inadequate for effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters (annotations, entity_type, name, parent_id) are documented in the schema. The description adds no semantic information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what they mean, how they're used, or what values are acceptable. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Query entities based on various criteria' is vague and tautological. It restates the tool name 'query_entities' without specifying what 'entities' are, what 'query' means operationally, or what 'various criteria' entail. It doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'search_entities' or 'get_entity', leaving the purpose ambiguous.

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?

There are no usage guidelines provided. The description doesn't indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_entities' or 'get_entity', nor does it mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. This leaves the agent with no guidance on tool selection.

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