mcp-server-peecai

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful context by specifying what information is returned (channel IDs, descriptions, active model, status) and the concept of stable identifiers, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs beyond 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by explanatory context and return details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity, rich annotations (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, context, and output details adequately without needing to cover parameters or behavioral safety already documented elsewhere.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., project_id uses env variable if omitted, limit range, offset default). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra 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 action ('List'), resource ('model channels tracked by Peec AI'), and provides a specific definition of what a model channel is with examples (e.g., openai-0, perplexity-0). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_models by focusing on channels rather than individual models, making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 implies usage for retrieving stable channel identifiers and their details, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_models. However, it provides clear context by explaining what a model channel is, which helps infer usage scenarios. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives are provided.

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