Scrapbox Cosense 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. It discloses key behaviors: returns a URL without opening a browser, uses a default project, and mentions the createActually parameter for immediate creation vs. URL-only return. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the URL format looks like, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by essential details in compact sentences. Every sentence adds value (e.g., default project, URL return behavior), with no wasted words, making it highly efficient 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a mutation tool. It covers the basic operation, default values, and return type (URL), but lacks information on error cases, authentication needs, or response format details, which could be important for robust agent usage.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning the default project and the effect of createActually, but does not provide additional syntax or format details. 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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new page in Scrapbox project on cosense'), specifying it's for creation with title and optional body text. It distinguishes from siblings like get_page, list_pages, or search_pages by focusing on creation rather than retrieval or modification.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (to create a new page) and mentions default behavior (uses 'my-cosense-project' if projectName not specified). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools like insert_lines for modifying existing pages.

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