Knowledge MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: automatic filename sanitization (spaces→hyphens), support for up to 50 chapters, and the return format (success, document_id, message, error). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error conditions beyond the return structure.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, when to use, key features, guidelines, exclusions) and uses bullet points for readability. It is appropriately sized but could be slightly more concise by integrating some repetitive elements like the chapter requirements.

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 (6 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, behaviors, and return format. However, it lacks explicit details on error handling or system constraints, which would enhance completeness for a creation tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-specific semantics, only noting that chapters require 'title' and 'content' keys and that filenames get slugified with .md extension optional. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without significant added value.

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 tool creates a 'structured knowledge document with rich metadata and chapters', specifying both the verb ('create') and resource ('knowledge document') with distinctive features like chapters and metadata. It differentiates from siblings like 'add_chapter' or 'update_chapter' by focusing on initial document creation.

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 explicit 'When to use this tool' with five specific scenarios (e.g., documenting technical topics, creating reference guides) and 'DO NOT use when' with four clear exclusions (e.g., content belongs in main.md, document already exists). It also mentions searching first to avoid duplicates, offering practical alternatives.

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