context7-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it returns a list of matching libraries, explains the selection process with prioritization criteria (name similarity, description relevance, etc.), specifies the response format (including error handling for no matches), and outlines how to handle ambiguous queries. This covers most behavioral aspects, though it could mention performance characteristics like rate limits or authentication needs.

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 but not optimally structured. The first paragraph clearly states the purpose and usage guidelines, but the subsequent 'Selection Process' and 'Response Format' sections, while informative, could be more integrated. Some sentences (e.g., about benchmark scores) add value but slightly reduce conciseness. Overall, it's front-loaded with key information but includes some elaboration that, while useful, affects efficiency.

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 complexity (a resolution tool with a multi-criteria selection process), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job of covering context. It explains the tool's role in the workflow, the selection logic, and the response handling. However, it lacks details on output structure (beyond high-level format) and doesn't address potential errors or edge cases beyond 'no good matches,' leaving minor gaps in 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema by explaining that the 'libraryName' parameter is a 'package/product name' to be resolved, and it implicitly defines the expected input as a query string rather than a pre-formatted ID. However, it doesn't provide examples or format details for the parameter, leaving some ambiguity.

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 ('resolves a package/product name to a Context7-compatible library ID') and resource ('returns a list of matching libraries'), distinguishing it from its sibling 'get-library-docs' by explaining this is a prerequisite step for obtaining valid IDs. The verb 'resolves' is precise and the scope is well-defined.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('before get-library-docs to obtain a valid Context7-compatible library ID') and when not to use it ('UNLESS the user explicitly provides a library ID in the format...'). It names the alternative tool ('get-library-docs') and provides clear conditions for bypassing this tool, offering comprehensive guidance.

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