civitai-mcp-ultimate

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that 'Previews are cached locally for viewing via Read tool' and mentions the 'exclude_used' parameter to 'skip images/videos already in history (avoid duplicates).' These are practical implementation details not captured in 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 appropriately sized for a tool with 21 parameters, but the structure could be improved. It starts with the core purpose, then lists parameters in bullet-point style without clear grouping. While all information is relevant, it could be more front-loaded with the most critical usage information before diving into parameter details.

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 (21 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of annotations and output schema, the description provides substantial context. It covers most parameters in detail and includes implementation notes about caching and requester usage. However, it doesn't explain the relationship between certain parameters (like model_id vs base_model) or provide guidance on parameter combinations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 21 parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameter semantics. It provides detailed explanations for 16 parameters (sort, nsfw, content_type, browsing_level, tag, base_model, tools, techniques, has_meta, made_on_site, originals_only, remixes_only, exclude_used, requester) including examples and usage notes, far exceeding the baseline expectation.

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: 'Browse AI-generated images/videos on Civitai.' It specifies the resource (images/videos) and platform (Civitai), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_top_images' or 'get_model_images' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 some usage context by listing filtering options and stating 'Always specify [requester] when fetching content for another MCP tool.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_top_images' or 'search_models', nor does it provide clear exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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