Craft MCP 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 states the tool retrieves an item, implying a read operation, but does not cover aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no structured annotations.

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 ('Get a specific item by ID from craft.io') and includes a helpful example without unnecessary details. Every word 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 simplicity (one parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is adequate for basic understanding. However, without annotations or an output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error cases, response format) and does not fully guide usage relative to siblings, leaving room for improvement in contextual completeness.

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%, so the input schema fully documents the 'itemId' parameter. The description adds minimal value by reinforcing the parameter's purpose with an example ('e.g., UPS-1234'), but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already states. Since there is only one parameter, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a specific item by ID from craft.io'), with an example ('e.g., UPS-1234') that helps distinguish it from sibling tools like 'craft_get_items' (which likely retrieves multiple items). It avoids tautology by not merely restating the tool name.

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 implies usage when needing a single item by ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'craft_get_items' (for multiple items) or 'craft_get_workspace' (for workspace data). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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