Scrapbox Cosense MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the fallback behavior (appending if line not found) and default project usage. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like page modification, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose and fallback behavior, while the second provides the default project information. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic operation and fallback behavior, but doesn't address what happens on success/failure, return values, or potential side effects. For a tool that modifies content, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 - it reiterates the fallback behavior for targetLineText and default for projectName, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 specific action ('Insert text after a specified line'), resource ('Scrapbox page on cosense'), and scope ('Uses my-cosense-project project as default'). It distinguishes from siblings like create_page (creation) and get_page (retrieval) by focusing on line-level insertion.

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 for when to use this tool (inserting text after a specific line) and includes fallback behavior (appending if line not found). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like create_page for new pages or get_page for checking existing content.

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