Tiptap Collaboration MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a prerequisite ('requires Tiptap Semantic Search to be enabled'), which adds useful context about dependencies. However, it fails to describe key behaviors such as whether this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (e.g., format, pagination), or any rate limits, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Search documents using semantic search') and includes a necessary prerequisite without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's moderate complexity (semantic search with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and a prerequisite but lacks details on behavior, return values, or error handling. This is sufficient for basic understanding but leaves gaps that could hinder effective use by an AI agent.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('query' and 'limit') in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the semantics of 'semantic search' or query formatting. This meets the baseline of 3 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 action ('Search documents') and the method ('using semantic search'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_documents' or 'get_document'. However, it lacks specificity about what resources are searched (e.g., all documents vs. a subset), making it slightly less precise than 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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Search documents using semantic search') and includes a prerequisite ('requires Tiptap Semantic Search to be enabled'), which provides clear context. However, it does not specify when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'list_documents' for non-semantic listing), preventing a perfect score.

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