Fetch read-only MCP client setup snippets for Codex, Claude Desktop, Cursor, Windsurf, or remote HTTP clients.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client | No | MCP client to generate a setup snippet for (e.g. 'claude-desktop', 'cursor'). | |
| endpointUrl | No | Override the default remote MCP endpoint URL in the generated snippet. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| policy | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description notes 'read-only', matching annotations declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. However, it adds no additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, caching, error handling) beyond what annotations already provide, so the added value is minimal.
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 conveys the essential information without any wasted words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action and resource.
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 that an output schema exists (handling return value details) and annotations cover safety, the description is sufficiently complete for a simple read-only fetch tool. It could optionally mention that snippets are plain text or that clients are case-insensitive, but not required.
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%, with each parameter having a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not provide any extra meaning or usage hints beyond listing the client names, so baseline score of 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?
The description uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource 'MCP client setup snippets', listing the exact clients supported. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like install.adapter or install.guidance, which have different purposes.
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 use when generating setup snippets for listed clients, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like install.guidance or install.compatibility. No exclusion criteria or context cues are given.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, especially with clear prefixes. However, there is some overlap between entry.safety and entry.trust (both deal with safety/trust metadata), and between registry.recommend and registry.plan (both provide recommendations). The descriptions help differentiate but some ambiguity remains.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: a domain prefix (entry, install, registry, submission) followed by a descriptive noun, all lowercase with underscores. This makes the surface predictable and easy to navigate.
27 tools is slightly high but reasonable given the broad scope of the HeyClaude registry, which includes browsing, recommending, installing guidance, and submission preparation. The count is appropriate for the server's purpose.
The tool surface is comprehensive, covering search, detail, comparison, safety/trust analysis, install setup for multiple clients, recommendation, and a full submission pipeline (validation, review, schema, etc.). There are no obvious gaps for the intended read-only registry directory functionality.
