mcp-adr-analysis-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's session-scoped effect and that it sets a default for subsequent calls, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens if the path validation fails, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: first states the action, second provides usage timing, third explains the downstream effect. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words.

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?

For a session configuration tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good context about when and why to use it, though it could benefit from more detail on error handling or validation behavior. Given the 100% schema coverage and clear purpose/guidelines, it's mostly complete but has minor gaps in behavioral transparency.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (path and validatePath). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or validation details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('dynamically set the active project path') and resource ('for the current session'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which are analysis, generation, validation, or file operations rather than session configuration tools. It explains the tool's unique role in session management.

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 at the start of a session to switch between projects') and the effect ('All subsequent tool calls will use this path as the default'), clearly differentiating it from alternatives like restarting the server or modifying environment variables mentioned in the description.

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