mcp-adr-analysis-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'zero token cost' for reading the graph, which is useful context about resource usage. However, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether operations are atomic, what happens on conflicts, whether changes are persistent, or what permissions are required. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, the second provides usage guidance. There's minimal waste, though the 'ADR-018:' prefix could be considered extraneous. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated immediately.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and provides some usage context, but doesn't address important aspects like what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral guarantees. The 100% schema coverage helps, but more behavioral context would be beneficial for this complex operation.

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 7 parameters with descriptions and enums. The description mentions 'entities (intents, ADRs, tools, code)' which partially explains entityType enum values, but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what's already in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 performs 'Simple CRUD operations for knowledge graph' with specific operations like 'Add/remove entities (intents, ADRs, tools, code) and relationships.' This provides a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which appear to be mostly analysis/validation tools rather than knowledge graph manipulation tools.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Simple CRUD operations for knowledge graph' and mentions 'Use knowledge://graph resource to read current state (zero token cost)' which implies this is for write operations while reading should use another resource. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is reasonably clear.

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