MCP Registry Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns 'a list of all registered MCP servers', which provides basic output context, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations cover.

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 with just two short phrases that directly state the tool's purpose and output. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. Annotations provide safety information, but the description lacks details about parameter usage, output format, or how it relates to sibling tools, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description doesn't mention any parameters, so it adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already lacks. However, since there are 5 parameters with no schema descriptions, the baseline is low, but the description doesn't compensate for this gap.

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 with 'List MCP servers' and specifies it returns 'a list of all registered MCP servers'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on listing servers rather than versions, though it doesn't explicitly name the siblings for comparison.

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 the sibling tools (getV01ServersServerNameVersions and getV01ServersServerNameVersionsVersion). It doesn't mention any prerequisites, alternatives, or contextual usage scenarios.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the ordering (newest first) and that it returns all available versions, which is useful but does not cover aspects like pagination, error handling, 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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second adds key behavioral details (ordering and scope). It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. It adds ordering and scope details, but could benefit from mentioning potential outputs or error cases, though not strictly required without an output schema.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description carries full burden. It adds meaning by explaining that 'serverName' is used to specify the MCP server for which versions are listed, clarifying the parameter's role beyond the schema's basic type definition.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all versions of an MCP server'), specifying it returns all available versions for a specific server ordered by publication date. It distinguishes from sibling tools: 'getV01Servers' likely lists servers, not versions, and 'getV01ServersServerNameVersionsVersion' likely retrieves a specific version.

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 implies usage context by specifying it's for a specific MCP server, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like the sibling tools. It provides clear context (list versions for a server) but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the 'latest' special value, which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps in transparency despite the annotations providing basic safety info.

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 highly concise and well-structured: two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides specific usage guidance. It's front-loaded with essential information and efficiently communicates key details 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 the tool's low complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, simple annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and a special parameter case, but lacks details on parameter semantics, error conditions, or return format. With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at what 'detailed information' includes, but it doesn't, leaving some contextual gaps.

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%, meaning parameters 'serverName' and 'version' lack documentation in the schema. The description only adds meaning for 'version' by mentioning the 'latest' special value, but doesn't explain what 'serverName' represents or provide any format or constraints for either parameter. This is insufficient compensation for the low 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get specific MCP server version - Returns detailed information about a specific version of an MCP server.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('MCP server version'), and outcome ('detailed information'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'getV01ServersServerNameVersions' which likely lists versions rather than getting details for a specific one.

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 usage guidance: 'Use the special version `latest` to get the latest version.' This indicates when to use a specific parameter value. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., 'getV01Servers' for general server info or 'getV01ServersServerNameVersions' for listing versions), leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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