Formath 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a 'compact JSON summary' but doesn't elaborate on aspects like performance (e.g., speed, data freshness), error handling, or whether it requires specific permissions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and output format. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary details or redundancy, making it highly efficient for quick understanding.

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 has an output schema (which should define the return structure), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, with no annotations and minimal parameter guidance, it provides only basic purpose and output format. For a tool that likely interacts with project data, this is adequate but leaves gaps in usage context and behavioral traits.

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 one parameter ('project_root') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't mention any parameters. Since there are zero parameters documented in the description, the baseline score is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps. However, it misses an opportunity to clarify the optional 'project_root' parameter's role.

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: 'Return a compact JSON summary of progress: entity counts and tasks by state.' It specifies the verb ('Return'), resource ('summary of progress'), and key content ('entity counts and tasks by state'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'tasks_list' or 'render_entities_markdown', which might also provide progress-related information.

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 sibling tools like 'tasks_list' or 'render_entities_markdown' that might offer similar or overlapping functionality, nor does it specify contexts or prerequisites for usage. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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