Craft 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 states the tool 'Get details,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what details are returned (e.g., name, settings, permissions), whether it requires authentication, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage, making it minimally transparent.

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, clear sentence: 'Get details about the configured craft.io workspace.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. 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 (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It states what the tool does but lacks context on return values, authentication needs, or error handling. Without an output schema, the description should ideally hint at what 'details' include, but it doesn't, making it minimally complete.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is efficient. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary information.

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: 'Get details about the configured craft.io workspace.' It uses a specific verb ('Get details') and identifies the resource ('configured craft.io workspace'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'craft_get_item' or 'craft_get_items' that target individual items or collections. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'craft_ping' (which likely checks connectivity), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like retrieving workspace metadata, checking configuration, or prerequisites. With siblings like 'craft_get_item' and 'craft_get_items', there's no indication of when workspace details are needed over item details, leaving usage unclear.

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