mcpnav directory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it follows the same safety rules as the website and selects the first safe endpoint, which is useful. But it does not disclose what happens if no safe endpoint exists, error behavior, or whether the operation has side effects (it appears read-only, but that is not stated explicitly).

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, both purposeful and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core action and scope; the second adds a precise reference to the mirrored behavior, ensuring the agent knows exact fidelity. No redundant words or vague 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?

For a tool with only 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it produces. It does not describe potential failure modes (e.g., server not found) but given the simplicity and that the schema fully documents inputs, this is a minor gap. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 'slug' and 'client' are described with examples and enum values. The description adds little beyond what the schema already provides, only reinforcing that the client parameter dictates the format. This meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 states a specific verb ('Generate') and a precise resource ('ready-to-paste install snippet for one server's first safe remote endpoint or installable package'), and clarifies the output format is client-specific. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_server or search_servers, which handle discovery rather than config generation.

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 provides clear context: it is for generating a snippet for a single server's first safe endpoint, and explicitly mirrors the Connect block on mcpnav.dev. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the purpose is obvious enough that an agent can infer it from context.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read operation ('fetch') and that the slug should come from search_servers, but it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., not found), authentication needs, rate limits, or response structure. For a fetch tool this is a notable gap, though the non-destructive nature is implicit.

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 with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded, and the next-step hint is a helpful addition without excess.

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?

The description covers the full workflow: where the slug comes from, what the tool does, and what to do next. It does not describe the return value format or error handling, but for a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the provided context is largely sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so the slug parameter is fully described in the schema. The description adds the context that the slug comes from search_servers and gives an example ('owner/repo'), but this is usage guidance rather than new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('fetch'), resource ('full mcpnav record for one server'), and how to identify it (slug from search_servers). It also differentiates from siblings by pointing to get_connect_config as the next step and search_servers as the source of the slug.

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 tells the agent to use this after search_servers (slug comes from its results) and to call get_connect_config next for an install snippet. This establishes the intended sequence and distinguishes from the alternative. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context covers the main 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation (listing) and mentions the output includes server counts, but it does not explicitly state lack of side effects or any behavioral nuances like ordering or pagination.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no wasted words. It conveys the essential information clearly.

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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned (groups with indexable server counts). It could mention ordering or limits, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently 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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds value by indicating the output includes server counts, but this is not parameter-related. No further parameter explanation is needed since there are none.

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 lists category groups and adds specific detail about including indexable server counts. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools (get_connect_config, get_server, search_servers) which address different resources.

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 this tool is used to enumerate groups, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives or any prerequisites. The context is inferred from the tool's nature rather than stated.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses whole-word, case-insensitive, AND matching semantics and explains that name matches rank above description-only matches. This is substantial behavioral detail beyond the basic search action.

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 tightly written sentences: the core action comes first, then matching rules, then the prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description still covers the essential contract: what is searched, how results match, how ranking works, and how to obtain a valid group slug. Parameter constraints are already in the schema, so no obvious gap remains for a keyword-search tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by explaining how query keywords are matched and by tying the group parameter to list_groups, going beyond the schema's terse field descriptions.

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 and resource: 'Search the mcpnav directory of MCP servers by name/description keywords,' and adds the optional category-group filter. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_server and list_groups even without naming them.

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?

Provides clear operational context by instructing the agent to 'Call list_groups first if you want a valid `group` value,' which ties the search to a prerequisite. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with get_server or list_groups, so full when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance is absent.

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