civitai-mcp-ultimate

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds value by specifying the scope ('currently supported') and the specific enums returned, which provides context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't detail response format or potential rate limits, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 a specific list of enums and a clear usage guideline. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information without redundancy, 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 simplicity (0 parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, why to use it, and what it returns, covering all necessary context without needing to detail parameters or output structure, which are handled 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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is high. The description adds no parameter information (as there are none), but it effectively compensates by explaining the output's purpose and content, which is valuable given the tool's role in metadata discovery.

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 specific action ('Get all valid enum values') and resource ('Civitai API filters'), with explicit enumeration of the five filter types (ModelType, BaseModel, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on metadata discovery rather than data retrieval or manipulation, unlike tools like get_model or search_models.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to discover currently supported model types and base models.' This provides clear context for usage (discovery of valid values) and implies alternatives (e.g., use other tools like search_models for actual filtering once values are known).

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