mcp-adr-analysis-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions operations but doesn't describe what each operation does behaviorally (e.g., whether 'reset_scores' is destructive, whether 'optimize_weights' requires special permissions, what 'sync_scores' actually synchronizes). For a complex tool with 18 parameters and multiple operations, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 that lists all major operations. It's appropriately sized for a complex tool, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., grouping related operations). There's no wasted verbiage, and the core functionality is clearly stated upfront.

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 highly complex tool with 18 parameters, multiple operations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how operations differ behaviorally, or what 'project health scoring system' entails. The description leaves too much undefined given the tool's complexity and lack of supporting 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone, but the description doesn't add any semantic value regarding parameters.

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 tool's purpose as 'central coordination for project health scoring system' with specific verbs (recalculate, sync, diagnose, optimize, reset) and scope (across all MCP tools). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'deployment_readiness' or 'analyze_project_ecosystem' which might overlap in scoring-related functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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. With many sibling tools that might handle scoring components (e.g., 'deployment_readiness', 'analyze_project_ecosystem'), there's no indication of whether this is a master coordination tool or how it relates to more specific tools. Usage is implied through the operation list but not explicitly stated.

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