Get the MCP client config to wire a product's own MCP server into the user's coding agent, if it ships one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Product slug, e.g. 'projscan'. | |
| client | No | Optional client: 'claude', 'cursor', or 'codex'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It merely states 'Get the MCP client config' without mentioning return format, side effects, or whether it is a read-only operation. The description does not contradict anything, but it adds no behavioral detail beyond the obvious getter action.
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 filler words. It front-loads the action and resource, and effectively communicates the tool's purpose in one concise line.
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 lack of an output schema, the description should explain the return value or config format, which it does not. It covers the general use case but leaves out details on response shape, making it minimally adequate for a simple two-parameter getter.
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% for both parameters (slug and client), and the schema already describes their meanings. The description adds context about the purpose but does not enrich the parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline 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 clearly states the tool gets the MCP client config for wiring a product's MCP server into a user's coding agent. The verb 'Get' and the resource 'MCP client config' are specific, and the phrase 'if it ships one' distinguishes it from other get* tools like get_docs and get_install.
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 a condition for use ('if it ships one') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_install or get_docs. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so usage guidance is only implied.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: find_tools searches by goal, list_products enumerates the catalogue, and get_docs/get_install/get_mcp_config retrieve different specific details for a product. No two tools overlap in intent or output, so an agent can accurately select the right one.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: find_tools, list_products, get_docs, get_install, get_mcp_config. The use of lowercase snake_case with clear verbs (find, list, get) creates a predictable and uniform naming convention.
Five tools is well-suited for a read-only catalogue server: one discovery search, one list operation, and three detail views (docs, install, config). This is neither too thin nor too heavy, and every tool serves a distinct informational purpose.
The catalogue domain is fully covered: users can explore all products (list_products), search by intent (find_tools), and retrieve each product's documentation (get_docs), installation command (get_install), and MCP configuration (get_mcp_config). There are no obvious missing operations for a non-mutable catalogue.
