Knowledge 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 discloses key behavioral traits: it's a 'lightweight overview operation' that returns 'completion statistics' and 'TODO numbers for reference.' However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or pagination. The description adds value but does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 structured with sections like 'When to use this tool,' 'Key features,' 'You should,' and 'DO NOT use when,' which aids readability. However, it is verbose with repetitive points (e.g., multiple mentions of 'TODO numbers' and 'completion'), and some sentences could be more concise. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the length is excessive for the tool's simplicity.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and return format. However, it lacks details on error cases or advanced behaviors, and the output format is described but not in a structured schema. For a simple list tool, it provides sufficient context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'project_id' documented as 'The project identifier.' The description does not add any meaning beyond this, as it does not mention parameters at all. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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's purpose: 'List all TODO lists in a project with their completion status.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('TODO lists'), and scope ('in a project'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_todo_tasks' beyond the 'DO NOT use when' section. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is not fully integrated into the core description.

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 usage guidelines with 'When to use this tool' listing five scenarios, 'You should' with five numbered recommendations, and 'DO NOT use when' with three exclusions including a named alternative ('get_todo_tasks'). This comprehensive guidance clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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