readme-checkREADME Check — Checks any place's about surface live — README, docs page, About page, or store description — exists, says what it is and who it is for, and gives a visitor a first action, with a walk-around to the equivalent if absent. Read-only, changes nothing. (3 MESH/call, a tool · ops)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | Capability-specific payload, e.g. agent-brain: {think:'...'}; agent-memory: {action:'store'|'recall', content|query} |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'Read-only, changes nothing', but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, i.e. the tool is not registered as read-only. That is a direct conflict on the single most consequential behavioral property. The useful add-ons (3 MESH/call cost, fallback behavior when the surface is absent) do not offset the contradiction.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence plus a cost tag, so there is little waste, but the em-dash pile-up and invented vocabulary ('walk-around to the equivalent', 'MESH/call, a tool · ops') make it harder to parse than its length warrants.
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?
For a single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description does cover what is inspected, the criteria applied, the absent-surface fallback, and the cost. It omits any specification of the input payload and gives no hint of the result shape or severity levels, which an agent would need to act on the findings.
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 description says nothing about the single `input` parameter. Schema coverage is nominally 100%, but the only text is boilerplate ('Capability-specific payload, e.g. agent-brain: {think:...}'), which illustrates other tools rather than readme-check's payload. An agent still does not know what to put in `input` for this tool.
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 names a concrete verb and object — checks a place's 'about surface' (README, docs page, About page, store description) for existence, self-description, audience, and a first action. That is specific enough to separate it from neighbours like org-profile-check or listing-upgrade-checker, which target narrower artifacts. The wording is dense and idiosyncratic ('walk-around to the equivalent'), which costs a little precision.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; the phrase 'checks any place's about surface' only implies broad applicability. No alternative sibling is named for the cases this tool does not cover, so the agent must infer routing from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.