civitai-mcp-ultimate

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent, non-read-only operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it clarifies the tool's purpose is to record usage events (not modify images themselves) and provides real-world examples of usage scenarios. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement followed by bullet-like explanations of each parameter. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core usage guideline and purpose.

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 has an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere), annotations covering key behavioral traits, and the description fully explaining all parameters and usage context, this description is complete. It provides everything needed for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool.

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, the description fully compensates by explaining all 5 parameters: 'image_ids' (Civitai image IDs that were used), 'action' (TRAIL action like 'posted'), 'requester' (workflow identifier), 'context' (optional note), and 'trace_id' (pipeline correlation). Each parameter's purpose and format is clearly described.

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 ('Mark images/videos as used') and the resource ('images/videos'), with concrete examples of when this occurs ('after sending to Pikabu, Telegram, etc.'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'browse_images' or 'get_model_images' by focusing on updating usage status rather than retrieval.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Call this AFTER successfully publishing content to another platform.' It also distinguishes usage from sibling tools by specifying this is for marking usage, not for retrieval or searching operations like 'search_models' or 'get_trail'.

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