RMCP

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

With no annotations, the description only discloses that the tool does not scan arbitrary URLs, indicating it operates on stored data. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or other 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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with the main action and key constraint.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is too brief. It fails to explain what a 'check' is or what the return value contains, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 single parameter 'id' is not described in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description provides no explanation of what 'id' represents, leaving the agent guessing.

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 returns the most recently stored check for an indexed endpoint, and explicitly distinguishes it from scanning arbitrary URLs, which helps differentiate it from siblings like get_mcp_endpoint.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives beyond stating it never scans URLs. Sibling tools are listed but no comparative context 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?

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the tool makes network calls, requires prior knowledge of servers, or any side effects. The description only lists comparison dimensions, not 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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and lists criteria. No redundant information; every word is purposeful.

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 simple parameters, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details and return format information, leaving gaps for an AI agent to fully understand usage context.

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 only 50% (only 'query' has a description). The description does not add meaning to the 'ids' parameter beyond its schema (array with min/max). It mentions comparison criteria but does not map them to parameters or provide additional semantic context.

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 specifies the verb 'compare' and the resource 'RMCP servers', listing specific comparison criteria (capabilities, tools, auth, transport, evidence, risk, latency, installation complexity). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like search_mcp_servers and get_mcp_server.

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 for comparing known servers but 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?

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It mentions 'without embedding credentials' but lacks disclosure of side effects, idempotency, or required permissions.

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, entirely waste-free and front-loaded with key action and constraint.

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?

Simple tool, but no output schema or parameter details; description is adequate for basic usage but leaves agent uncertain about output format.

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?

0% schema coverage, and description provides no additional meaning for client, server_id, or endpoint_index beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 installation instructions without credentials, distinguishing it from sibling tools that check endpoints or search 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 for obtaining installation instructions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor 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?

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get stored information'), which is safe, but does not disclose behavior on missing IDs, permissions, or rate limits. Adequate but not thorough.

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 sentence provides the core information without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and lists the returned attributes, though the list is somewhat lengthy.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description should clearly describe the parameter's meaning and the return structure. It does the latter partially but fails on the former. The tool is not fully self-contained for an agent to invoke 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?

The parameter 'id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain what the ID represents, its format, or how to obtain it. This is a significant omission for a single-parameter 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and lists the types of information retrieved (transport, authentication, protocol, etc.), clearly indicating what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like check_mcp_endpoint or compare_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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for retrieving stored configuration, but does not state when not to use it or mention sibling 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions the output contains trust, risks, warnings, and install options, hinting at a read operation, but omits details on side effects, error conditions, or required permissions.

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 single sentence is concise and lists key output components, though it could benefit from being broken into clear bullets or sections for easier parsing.

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 output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the definition is incomplete. It fails to clarify input semantics, return format, or behavioral guarantees, leaving an agent without sufficient information to use it reliably.

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 description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description fails to explain what 'id' represents (e.g., server name, URL, internal identifier).

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' and lists included components (endpoints, tools, trust, risks), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on specific elements like endpoints or 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as search_mcp_servers or check_mcp_endpoint, nor does it specify 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 must convey behavioral traits. It lists the returned data (schema, server, risk, etc.) which is helpful, but it omits details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether changes are involved. The description is partially transparent but incomplete.

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 with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the tool's function in a clear, front-loaded manner.

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), the description covers essential information: what is returned. However, it leaves a small gap by not clarifying whether the returned 'tool schema' is the input schema or includes additional metadata. Still, it is mostly complete for basic usage.

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% for the single parameter 'id'. The description implies that 'id' identifies the tool to retrieve, which adequately clarifies its meaning. Although the parameter is simply a string, the description compensates for the missing 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 retrieves a single tool's schema, server, endpoint, availability, risk, and installation instructions. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_mcp_tools (which likely returns multiple results) and get_mcp_server (server-level info).

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 detailed information for one tool is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or 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 must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions 'indexed remote MCP servers' but lacks details on pagination, sorting, result format, latency, or error handling. Parameters include limit (default 20, max 100) but this is exposed in the schema, not in the description. The description does not explain what 'indexed' implies for freshness or coverage.

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 captures the core purpose. It is concise but could be slightly expanded to cover more behavioral context without becoming verbose. The structure is efficient.

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 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how filters combine, whether results are ranked, or how to handle large result sets. Return values are not described, and the query parameter's syntax is undefined.

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 compensate. It lists some search dimensions (task, capability, etc.) but does not map them to schema properties like 'category', 'transport', 'online_only', 'verified_only', 'authentication', or 'read_only_only'. The boolean filters and enum for 'transport' are left unexplained, which is a significant 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 verb 'search' and the resource 'indexed remote MCP servers'. It lists multiple search dimensions (task, capability, product, category, endpoint metadata, associated tools) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_mcp_tools (which searches tools) and get_mcp_server (specific retrieval).

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/when-not to use guidance. The description implies usage for broad searching across multiple criteria, but does not mention alternatives like search_mcp_tools for tool-specific queries or get_mcp_server for exact server lookups. Sibling tools exist but no differentiation 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to state whether the operation is read-only, what the response format is, or any limitations such as pagination or rate limits. It only vaguely mentions 'identify each matching parent server' without detailing the output.

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 unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as mentioning key parameters or return structure.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to use parameters like 'authentication' or 'online_only', nor does it describe the expected results or pagination behavior. An AI agent would lack critical information for correct 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 schema has 5 parameters (query, limit, online_only, authentication, read_only_only) with 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of them. For example, 'authentication' and 'read_only_only' are left entirely undefined, making it hard for an AI agent to know valid values or behavior.

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 function: 'Search individual tool capabilities across every indexed MCP server and identify each matching parent server.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('individual tool capabilities'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_mcp_servers' by focusing on tools rather than 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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about suitable queries, required conditions, or when to prefer it over siblings like 'get_mcp_tool' or 'search_mcp_servers'.

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