civitai-mcp-ultimate

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by listing return fields (e.g., description, versions, files), which gives context on output structure, 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 a concise list of return fields. Every sentence earns its place by adding value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 low complexity (1 parameter), rich annotations covering safety and behavior, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is complete enough. It provides purpose, parameter context, and output overview without needing to duplicate structured data.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by specifying that the parameter is 'model_id' and it's used to get info 'by ID'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type definition, though it doesn't detail format constraints or examples. With only one parameter, the baseline is high, and the description provides adequate semantic context.

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 verb ('Get detailed info') and resource ('about a specific model by ID'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_models' (which returns multiple models) and 'get_model_version' (which focuses on a specific version rather than the full model).

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 when detailed information about a single model is needed, as opposed to 'search_models' for multiple models. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or provide clear alternatives beyond the sibling list, such as distinguishing from 'get_model_version' for version-specific data.

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