IT Tools 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. While 'format and prettify' implies a non-destructive transformation, it doesn't specify whether the tool preserves comments, handles invalid CSS, or provides error messages. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear, direct language without unnecessary elaboration.

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 incomplete for a transformation tool. It doesn't explain what the formatted output looks like, whether it includes validation, or how errors are handled. While the purpose is clear, the lack of behavioral and output details makes it inadequate for confident tool invocation.

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 both parameters ('css' and 'indentSize') with descriptions. The tool description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or formatting rules, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Format and prettify CSS code' clearly states the tool's function with specific verbs ('format', 'prettify') and resource ('CSS code'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'format_html' or 'format_javascript' by specifying CSS, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other formatting tools beyond the resource type.

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 any prerequisites, limitations, or comparison with similar tools like 'format_html' or 'format_javascript', leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the tool name and description.

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