civitai-mcp-ultimate

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), so the description adds value by specifying the hash types supported (SHA256, AutoV2, CRC32, BLAKE3). However, it doesn't provide additional context like error handling, performance, or authentication needs beyond the 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—every word contributes to clarifying the tool's purpose and parameter usage. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action.

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 simple input schema (one parameter), rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the lookup mechanism and hash types, though it could benefit from mentioning when to use this over sibling tools or clarifying the expected output format.

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 and only one parameter, the description compensates well by explaining that the 'hash' parameter accepts multiple file hash types (SHA256, AutoV2, CRC32, BLAKE3), adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. This is crucial for correct tool invocation.

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 ('Find') and resource ('model version') with a specific lookup mechanism ('by its file hash'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_model_version' or 'get_model_version_mini', which likely have different lookup criteria.

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. It doesn't mention when this hash-based lookup is preferred over other methods (e.g., by ID or name) or reference sibling tools like 'get_model_version' for comparison, leaving usage context unclear.

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