Broadcom Support 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 describes what the tool does ('Retrieve...') and what it returns, but it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or other behavioral traits like whether it's read-only or has side effects. This is a significant gap 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two efficient sentences that directly state the action and return values without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately, but it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, which are needed for full contextual understanding.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by specifying that the 'url' parameter should point to a 'Broadcom Support article'. With schema description coverage at 0% and only one parameter, the description effectively compensates by clarifying the parameter's purpose, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., URL structure).

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 with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('Broadcom Support article'), and it distinguishes the scope ('full content') from the sibling tool 'search_documentation', which likely searches rather than retrieves full content. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate the sibling's function, keeping it from 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 the sibling 'search_documentation', nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for usage. It implies usage by specifying the resource but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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