set-mcp-context

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'store' without detailing important traits such as whether the tool overwrites existing keys, persistence guarantees, authorization requirements, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation operation.

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, concise sentence with no extraneous words. However, it could be slightly more informative without adding length, such as noting that it persists across sessions. It earns points for efficiency but loses some for missing critical context.

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 (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It does not explain what happens on key collision, how values are serialized, or how this relates to sibling tools like 'get-mcp-context'. The context from sibling tools is not leveraged to guide selection.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for 'key' and 'value'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rubric, baseline is 3 for high schema coverage, and there is no extra parameter information to push it higher.

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 verb 'store' and the resource 'context information in MCP', with the purpose 'for future sessions'. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get-mcp-context' (retrieve) and 'update-context-after-operation' (specific update), providing a clear and specific function.

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 vs alternatives such as 'get-mcp-context' or 'update-context-after-operation'. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or any conditions for usage, leaving the agent without decision-support context.

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