maimemo-mcp

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits: read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world (handles missing data gracefully). The description adds minimal context by specifying lookup criteria, but doesn't disclose additional behaviors like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format details. With annotations providing a solid foundation, the description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral context, warranting a baseline 3.

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 that front-loads the core purpose without any fluff. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and criteria. There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no required params), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It states the lookup purpose and criteria, which, combined with structured data, provides adequate context. However, it could improve by hinting at the output format or usage scenarios, slightly limiting completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions parameters ('spelling or vocabulary id'), aligning with the schema's 'spellings' and 'ids' arrays. However, it doesn't explain semantics like what constitutes a valid ID, how spellings are matched (exact, partial, case-sensitive), or the relationship between the two parameters (e.g., if both can be used together). The description adds basic meaning but doesn't fully bridge the coverage gap, resulting in a 3.

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 action ('Look up') and resource ('Maimemo vocabulary records'), specifying the lookup criteria ('by spelling or vocabulary id'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'maimemo_get_due_words' or 'maimemo_list_today_words' by focusing on lookup rather than retrieval of specific categories. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at a 4 instead of 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios where this lookup is preferred over sibling tools like 'maimemo_list_today_words' for general vocabulary access or 'maimemo_get_due_words' for specific learning contexts. There's no indication of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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