Craft MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'gets items' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, pagination behavior, or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational 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 front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by explicitly listing item types). Every part earns its place, but it's borderline due to potential under-specification.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that retrieves multiple items (implying potential complexity like pagination or filtering), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return format, error cases, authentication needs, or how it interacts with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('fields' and 'limit'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of field names or implications of the limit. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('Get items') and resource ('from the craft.io workspace'), specifying the types of items (products, features, etc.). It distinguishes from 'craft_get_item' (singular) by implying retrieval of multiple items, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'craft_get_workspace' or other siblings beyond scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'craft_get_item' or 'craft_get_workspace'. The description implies it's for retrieving multiple items but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.

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