RMCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns stored data and does not perform live scans, which adds transparency. However, it fails to explain the meaning of the 'id' parameter or the concept of an 'indexed endpoint,' leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 concise at two sentences, with the purpose stated upfront in the first sentence. It avoids fluff and is well-structured, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the 'id' parameter represents, what a 'check' is, or the return format. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool confidently.

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 schema has one parameter 'id' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention or define this parameter. It provides no additional meaning beyond what the schema already shows, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 it returns the most recently stored check for an indexed endpoint, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_mcp_endpoint by focusing on a stored check rather than the endpoint itself, and clarifies it does not scan URLs.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions it never scans an arbitrary URL, implying a limitation, but does not name sibling tools like get_mcp_endpoint or explain scenarios for choosing one over the other.

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 must carry behavioral weight. It lists comparison criteria but does not disclose behavior for invalid IDs, prerequisites, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. The criteria list provides some transparency but leaves gaps.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. All key information is front-loaded and each part is essential to the tool's purpose.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers comparison criteria but omits details on return format (text vs structured), error handling, and prerequisites (e.g., servers must be 'known'). Adequate but not fully complete for agent invocation.

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 clarifies that 'ids' identifies 'known RMCP servers' and restricts to 2-4, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare type/constraints. For 'query', it restates the schema description but does not add new semantics. Schema coverage is 50%, so description compensates.

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 action 'compare' and the resource 'RMCP servers', specifying a range of two to four servers and listing nine criteria. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_mcp_server or search_mcp_servers.

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 when you have specific known servers to compare, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_mcp_servers or get_mcp_server. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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?

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: instructions do not embed credentials. However, it omits other important behaviors such as whether the tool requires authentication, side effects, error handling for invalid parameters (e.g., bad server_id), and the output format. With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility and provides only partial 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 a single, information-dense sentence. It is front-loaded and to the point, with no wasted words. However, it could be more effective by adding brief parameter explanations, which would slightly increase length but improve completeness.

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 three parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits parameter semantics, output structure, and usage conditions. While the core purpose is clear, the agent lacks sufficient information to use the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It only says 'client-specific', which hints at the 'client' parameter but provides no explanation for 'server_id' or 'endpoint_index'. The enum values for 'client' are not described, and the role of 'endpoint_index' is unclear. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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: generating client-specific, copyable installation instructions without embedding credentials. It uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource, and the constraint adds precision. The tool's name aligns with its function, and it stands out from siblings, which are about checking endpoints and servers, not installing.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. Although the tool is distinct from siblings, the lack of explicit usage context limits the agent's ability to choose correctly.

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, and the description only says 'Get stored... information', implying a read operation but not explicitly stating safety, idempotency, or other behavioral traits. It adds minimal transparency beyond the name.

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 sentence that efficiently lists the types of information retrieved. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for clarity.

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 tool has only one parameter and no output schema, but the description lacks parameter explanation and usage context. It does not fully compensate for the missing annotations or schema details.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'id' parameter (e.g., what it represents, format, or examples). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's minimal 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 tool retrieves specific information types (transport, authentication, protocol, etc.) for an indexed endpoint, distinguishing it from siblings like check_mcp_endpoint (likely health check) and get_mcp_server (server details).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_mcp_endpoint or get_mcp_server. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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 bears full responsibility. It indicates the tool returns data (read operation) but does not disclose authorization requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The description lists what is included but lacks details on behavioral traits.

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, concise sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the action 'Get'. No redundant information; every word contributes to understanding the tool's output.

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 lists multiple components (endpoints, tools, trust, risks, etc.) but lacks details on error handling, availability, or output structure. No output schema exists to compensate. The description is adequate but not thorough for a tool returning complex structured data.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on the 'id' parameter beyond implicit identification. It does not specify the format or source of the ID (e.g., UUID, name), leaving ambiguity. The description adds minimal value over the schema.

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 retrieves a 'complete structured server record' including endpoints, tools, trust, risks, warnings, and install options. The verb 'Get' and the detailed list of components make the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like get_mcp_endpoint, which is more specific.

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 tool is used when a full server record is needed, but it does not explicitly compare with siblings or state when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or alternatives is provided.

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, the description carries full burden but only lists return fields without explaining behavior (e.g., error handling, idempotency, permissions, or what 'inferred risk' means). No side effects or prerequisites are mentioned.

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 concise sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, a slightly more structured format (e.g., listing return items) could improve readability without adding length.

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 absence of an output schema, the description does not fully explain return values like 'inferred risk' or 'availability'. Error cases and input constraints are missing. More detail would be needed for complete understanding.

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 only parameter 'id' is a string with no format, example, or additional context in the description. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not add meaning beyond implying it identifies the 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 clearly states the tool retrieves schema, server, endpoint, availability, risk, and installation instructions for a single tool. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource (one tool). However, it could better differentiate from siblings like get_mcp_server or search_mcp_tools.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_mcp_tools or get_mcp_server. The description lacks context for when this tool is appropriate or when to avoid it.

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 provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, pagination, or result set size. Only 'limit' parameter implies pagination but is not explained.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no unnecessary words. However, it could be structured as a list of searchable facets for clarity.

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 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain return values, pagination, or how the various filters interact.

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 description must compensate. It mentions only a subset of search dimensions (e.g., category, capability) but omits details on 'limit', 'transport', 'online_only', 'verified_only', 'authentication', and 'read_only_only' parameters.

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 'Search' and resource 'indexed remote MCP servers', listing multiple search dimensions (task, capability, etc.). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tool 'search_mcp_tools' which searches tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_mcp_server' or 'search_mcp_tools'. The description does not mention exclusions or context-specific conditions.

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 provided, so description must cover behavior. It does not specify whether results are live or cached, pagination, or what 'capabilities' entails. Minimal disclosure beyond the basic purpose.

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?

Single sentence, not wasteful, but lacks structure. Could be improved by front-loading key info like the return type or filtering behavior.

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 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is extremely incomplete. It offers no information on return values, parameter effects, or usage examples.

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 0% and description provides no explanation for any of the 5 parameters (query, limit, online_only, authentication, read_only_only). The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states it searches individual tool capabilities across MCP servers and identifies parent servers. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_mcp_servers (searches servers) and get_mcp_tool (gets specific tool).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_mcp_servers. No mention of prerequisites or context where this tool is preferred.

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