Knowledge MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies that removal is permanent, preserves other chapters, maintains document integrity, requires case-sensitive chapter titles, and suggests verification steps. It doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling details, keeping it from a perfect score.

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, usage guidelines, features, instructions, exclusions, returns) and front-loaded key information. It's appropriately sized but could be slightly more concise by integrating some bullet points into flowing text without losing clarity.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage context, behavioral traits, and return format. It lacks details on error scenarios or system-level constraints, but given the tool's moderate complexity, it provides sufficient context 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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the 'chapter_title' must be exact and case-sensitive, but doesn't provide additional context for 'filename' or 'project_id'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Remove a specific chapter') and resource ('from a knowledge document'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete_knowledge_file' (whole file deletion) and 'update_chapter' (modification rather than removal). It precisely defines the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 guidance with dedicated 'When to use this tool' and 'DO NOT use when' sections, listing specific scenarios like removing outdated content or consolidating overlapping chapters, and warning against use when chapters should be updated instead. It clearly differentiates from alternatives like 'update_chapter' for content modification.

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