How to install the full local stdio MCP (signing + gas) vs this remote read surface. No auth required.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "install_guide"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the tool is informational and "No auth required." It does not disclose the response shape (link, markdown steps, or prose), whether the content is static or server-version specific, or any length/format expectation, which is a real gap for a documentation tool with no output schema.
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 short sentences with zero waste, and the differentiator (local stdio vs remote read surface) is front-loaded. Nothing is repeated and nothing could be cut without losing information.
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 no-param documentation tool this is close to sufficient, but "this remote read surface" is a deictic reference to a server an agent may have no context on, and the absence of any statement about what the tool returns (or that it returns documentation at all) leaves the agent guessing at the output.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The mention of "signing + gas" vs "remote read surface" is context about content, not 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?
"How to install the full local stdio MCP (signing + gas)" names the resource and the concrete subject matter, and the contrast with the "remote read surface" makes the scope of the guide understandable. It falls short of a 5 because it never says the tool returns installation instructions (its purpose is inferred from the topic phrase rather than stated as an action) and it makes no reference to the sibling guides it sits beside.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when the user wants the local full install (signing + gas) rather than the remote read surface. There is no explicit "call this when..." clause, no prerequisite statement, and no named alternative tool, so the routing must still be inferred from the parenthetical.
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.