Yuque 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 retrieves 'detailed content,' which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned content. This leaves 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 directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed content' includes (e.g., text, metadata, formatting), potential errors, or usage constraints. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.

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 (book_id as 'Knowledge base (repository) ID' and doc_id as 'Document ID'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'by doc_id,' which is redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 ('Get detailed content') and the resource ('a specific Yuque document by doc_id'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'search' tool, which likely searches across documents rather than retrieving a specific one, so it misses the highest score for sibling differentiation.

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 like the sibling 'search' tool. It mentions retrieving a specific document by doc_id, which implies usage when the exact document ID is known, but this is not explicitly stated as a guideline or contrasted with other tools.

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