Every MCP

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating lookup, so the bar is lowered. The description usefully discloses the provenance (Official MCP Registry), which hints at freshness/authority, but says nothing about behavior when a client has no config available or whether results can be stale.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the output shape (install command or config fragment) and the scope (one server, one client) front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does identify the two possible return forms. For a 3-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage, that is nearly complete; only fallback/error behavior is unstated.

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 100%, so id, client, and search_id are all already documented in the schema (including the enum values and telemetry purpose of search_id). The description adds no parameter format or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (return) plus the concrete resource (a ready-to-run install command or exact config fragment) scoped to one MCP server and one client, and names the data source. This distinguishes it from get_server (server details) and search_tools (discovery) by implication, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 the place in the workflow — you already know which server and client you want — and the search_id parameter hints at following a prior search_tools call, but the description body gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to get_server or search_tools.

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?

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context that the data comes from the Official MCP Registry and enumerates the fields returned, but says nothing about failure behavior when an id is unknown or about rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then enumerates the returned data; every clause earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does reasonably well, listing the record, verification facts, and install-target clients. It stops short of describing the shape of those records or error handling for a bad id, so it is good but not fully complete.

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 100% – both id (full registry name format) and search_id (optional telemetry) are documented in the schema itself, including the example format. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (return), resource (registry record for one MCP server), and scope (one, keyed by id), plus what the payload contains. It separates itself from search_tools implicitly through the search_id parameter, but never names the sibling get_install_config, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement. The search_id parameter description ('from the search_tools result that led you here') implies the intended lookup-after-search flow, but the description itself gives no guidance on prerequisites or when to prefer get_install_config over this tool.

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, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context the annotations do not: the data is drawn from the Official MCP Registry, meaning scope is limited to publicly registered servers, and results are compact summaries rather than full records. Pagination/limit behavior is not described, but the provenance disclosure is real added value.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the return-shape caveat, then provenance. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states what comes back (compact summaries) and where to go for the full record. It also discloses the data source. Only minor gaps remain, such as ranking or result-cap behavior, which the limit parameter schema partially covers.

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 67%, so the schema documents most parameters (limit, publisher, transport, has_remote). The description only reinforces the query parameter's natural-language intent ("by what you want a server to do") and says nothing about the nested filters object, adding little beyond what the schema already carries.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (the public MCP server universe) and the axis of search (what you want a server to do). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_server by noting it returns compact summaries rather than a full record.

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?

It routes the agent clearly: use this for discovery, then call get_server for a full record, which is an explicit alternative with its selecting condition. It stops short of stating when not to search at all (e.g., when the server name is already known, skip straight to get_server), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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