PromptArchitect MCP

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 behavioral traits by listing what metrics are checked (AI availability, cache hit rate, request statistics, latency), which adds useful context beyond a basic 'get status' statement. However, it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving some 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a bulleted list for specific checks. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, making it highly efficient.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete for a status-checking tool. It explains what metrics are returned, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, it could be more comprehensive by including details like response format or error cases, keeping it at an adequate but not exceptional level.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. This meets the baseline for 0 parameters, but since it doesn't add any parameter-specific value beyond the schema, it's not a 5.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get PromptArchitect server status and performance metrics.' It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'server status and performance metrics.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (analyze_prompt, generate_prompt, refine_prompt), which are unrelated to server status, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 the tool: 'Use this tool to check:' followed by specific metrics. It implies usage for monitoring server health and performance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, which prevents a score of 5.

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