Lyngdorf MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Set' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, what happens when setting focus position, whether changes are immediate or reversible, or what side effects might occur. It lacks crucial context 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 extremely concise with just 5 words, front-loading the essential information without any wasted words. Every element ('Set', 'RoomPerfect', 'focus position', '1-8') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'RoomPerfect' is, what 'focus position' means in practical terms, what happens when you set it, or what the expected outcome should be. The context signals show this is a simple tool, but even simple mutation tools need more behavioral context.

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 input schema already fully documents the single 'position' parameter with its type, range, and description. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score 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 action ('Set') and target resource ('RoomPerfect focus position'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'setRoomPerfectGlobal' or explain what 'RoomPerfect' refers to in 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. With sibling tools like 'setRoomPerfectGlobal' and 'getRoomPerfect', there's no indication of when this specific focus position setting is appropriate versus global settings or retrieval operations.

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