mcp-server-peecai

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering key behavioral traits like safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the return fields (prompt IDs, messages, etc.), which isn't in the annotations, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination details beyond what's implied by limit/offset parameters.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and return values without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 (5 parameters, read-only operation), rich annotations, 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and return fields, though it could benefit from more explicit usage guidelines relative to siblings. The output schema likely handles return value details, reducing the burden on the description.

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 if omitted, limit has range 1-10000). The description doesn't 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 search prompts') and resource ('for a Peec AI project'), and specifies what information is returned (prompt IDs, messages, tags, topics, locations, and search volume). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like list_prompt_suggestions or list_topics, which might also relate to prompts or topics.

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 listing prompts in a project context, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_prompt_suggestions or search_queries. The input schema mentions using list_projects to find project IDs, which offers some contextual guidance, but this isn't in the description itself.

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