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 behavioral traits: it preserves other chapters and document structure, updates chapter summaries, and is an efficient partial update. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or rate limits, which are important for a mutation tool.

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 (e.g., 'When to use this tool', 'Key features', 'You should', 'DO NOT use when'), making it easy to scan. It is appropriately sized, with each sentence adding value, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating some points.

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 (a mutation tool with 5 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description does a good job covering usage, behavior, and exclusions. It explains the return format ({success: bool, message?: str, error?: str}), compensating for the lack of output schema, but could benefit from more detail on error cases or side effects.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, such as implying case-sensitivity for chapter_title and the .md extension requirement, but does not provide significant additional semantic context. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Update a specific chapter within a knowledge document efficiently.' It specifies the verb ('update'), resource ('chapter'), and scope ('within a knowledge document'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_chapter and remove_chapter by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion.

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 'When to use this tool' (e.g., correcting information, expanding content) and 'DO NOT use when' (e.g., chapter doesn't exist, need to update multiple chapters), including named alternatives like add_chapter. This clearly defines the tool's context and exclusions.

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