TypeScript MCP Server Boilerplate

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. It mentions that the tool returns a greeting but doesn't describe any behavioral traits such as error handling, response format, or potential side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (simple greeting function), 2 parameters with full schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the basic purpose adequately, though it lacks behavioral details that could enhance agent understanding in the absence of annotations.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (name and language) and an enum for language. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it only implies that name and language are inputs without providing additional semantic context. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the 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: '입력하면 인사말을 반환합니다' (returns a greeting when given inputs). It specifies the verb (returns greeting) and resources (name and language). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'generate-image', which is unrelated but could benefit from clearer distinction in a broader context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states what the tool does but offers no context about scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to other tools. This leaves the agent without usage direction beyond the basic function.

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