AgentStatus MCP Index

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

Beyond the openWorldHint annotation, the description discloses that this connection does not list the indexed servers and that the call is proxied to that server with its result returned here. That is useful behavioral context for an open-world proxy tool. It does not explain remote-tool side effects, failure modes, or latency, but the annotations already carry the safety profile for this local tool.

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 four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence contributes either purpose, prerequisite, or proxying behavior. There is no repetition or 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?

With annotations, a full input schema, and an output schema, the description covers the essential workflow and proxying behavior. The main remaining gap is that it does not explain how an agent should discover the remote tool's argument schema before passing arguments. Otherwise it is complete for this complexity level.

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 schema already documents slug, tool, and arguments. The description adds valuable context by explaining that slug and tool should come from a prior search_records or recommend_records call. It does not describe the arguments object, but the schema handles that adequately.

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 precise verb and target: run a tool on a public MCP server from the AgentStatus Index. It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling tools search_records and recommend_records by explaining the prerequisite sequence. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 explicitly says to call search_records or recommend_records first, then pass the resulting slug and tool. This names the alternatives and the condition for using this tool. The guidance is direct and leaves no ambiguity about the required workflow.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the input accepts 2-5 items and the response contains stored details plus a diff of differing fields, which tells the agent what it will get back from a comparison.

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 filler, and the input constraint plus the return content are both front-loaded. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

A single fully-documented parameter, complete annotations, and an output schema mean the description need not explain return values, yet it still summarizes them. Minor gaps remain around error behavior for unknown or ambiguous identifiers, but nothing essential to calling the tool correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already documents the records array with minItems 2, maxItems 5, and an example. The description's 'by id, slug, or exact name' matches the schema text without adding format or matching semantics (e.g., case sensitivity, ambiguity handling), so baseline 3 applies.

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 (compare) and resource (directory items), plus the accepted 2-5 item range and the identifier forms. It does not name get_record or search_records as alternatives, so the differentiation from siblings is implied rather than explicit.

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: comparing multiple items is what the tool is for, and the 2-5 bound hints that a single-item lookup belongs elsewhere. No when-not guidance or named alternative is given, leaving the agent to infer the boundary with get_record.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that exactly one item is returned and that matching is exact on three key types, but says nothing about what happens when no item matches.

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?

One sentence, no filler, and the lookup keys are front-loaded immediately after the verb and resource. Nothing could be trimmed 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 one-parameter read-only lookup with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is fetched and how it is keyed. The only real gap is not-found behavior and routing versus search_records, which are secondary given the surrounding 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 100% and the single parameter's description ('Record id, slug, or exact title') already enumerates the accepted forms, so the description largely restates the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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?

Specific verb ('look up') plus resource ('one directory item') and the three accepted lookup keys. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like search_records or list_sections, and the title ('Get an MCP server') is narrower than the description's 'directory item', leaving a small ambiguity about what a record actually is.

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 phrase 'by id, slug, or exact name' implies this is an exact-match single-item lookup, which implicitly contrasts with the fuzzy retrieval implied by search_records. However, it never states when to use this instead of search_records or how to obtain a valid id in the first place.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — no ordering, no pagination, no indication of how many sections come back or how they relate to indexed tools — so it earns little credit beyond the structured fields.

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?

One short sentence with no padding, so it is certainly concise. But the single sentence is front-loaded with a confusing phrase ('in MCP for AgentStatus MCP Index') rather than the useful information, so brevity comes at the cost of 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out. However, for a discovery-style listing tool whose obvious next step is call_indexed_tool, the description never explains what a section is or how it is used downstream, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent navigating this tool set.

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. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless 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 verb 'Show' plus the resource 'sections' gives a rough sense of a read/list operation, but the phrasing 'in MCP for AgentStatus MCP Index' is awkward and never clarifies what a 'section' actually is. It also does nothing to separate it from siblings like call_indexed_tool or search_records, which likely operate on those same sections.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to pick instead. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this is a discovery step before call_indexed_tool or an independent listing operation.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; 'This tool only reads the Index' restates it but usefully scopes it to the Index. The description does not explain how recommendations are ranked or filtered (fuzzy match? scoring?) — context an agent would need to trust results.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return shape. Slight redundancy in the trailing 'only reads the Index' sentence given the readOnlyHint annotation, but no 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?

Output schema exists and schema coverage is full, so return values and parameters are documented. What is missing is the differentiator: why an agent should pick this over search_records, and whether results are ranked — a meaningful gap for a tool whose name implies ranking.

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%, including enum values for status and default/max for limit, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing beyond 'for a need', which is the baseline-3 case.

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 ('Return') and resource ('public MCP servers from the full Index') plus the shape of each match (slug and tool names). However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling search_records, which an agent could reasonably read as doing the same thing.

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?

There is no statement of when to use recommend_records rather than search_records, get_record, or compare_records. The only sibling reference appears inside the host parameter description ('same as search_records'), which clarifies a field, not tool selection.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the connection's scope and that matches contain a slug and tool names, but says nothing about pagination limits, empty-result behavior, or ordering beyond what the schema states.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the scope caveat, then workflow direction. Nothing is wasted and no sentence repeats the schema verbatim at 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?

With full schema coverage, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description only needs to orient the agent and route it onward, which it does. A brief note on result ordering or what an empty result means would close the remaining gap.

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 all six parameters are documented in the schema, including the host enum values and limit default/max. The description only restates the host values and the query purpose ('Pass the job as query'), adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 full public MCP Index') and clarifies the scope boundary that matters most: 'The tools on this connection are only the Index, not the catalog.' That scope clarification helps separate it from sibling tools like get_record and compare_records, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Pass the job as query' gives invocation guidance, and 'Run one with call_indexed_tool' establishes the follow-up step. But there is no guidance on when to choose this over compare_records, recommend_records, or get_record, so the routing decision is only implied.

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