mcp-catalog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the not-found behavior ('Если карточки нет — found=false') and clarifies the accepted identifier formats. This is useful behavioral context beyond the tool name and schema, though it omits other details like error handling or authorization.

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 two dense sentences: the first defines the tool's purpose and return contents, the second explains identifier formats and not-found behavior. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter lookup tool, the description covers the core semantics: what the card contains, what values identifier can take, and what happens when no card is found. The presence of an output schema means return-value details do not need to be expanded further.

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 provides only the parameter name and type with 0% schema description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining that 'identifier' can be a short slug, a /servers/author/name URL path, a name, or a package name. This is essential information for correctly invoking the 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 clearly states that the tool returns a single server's catalog card containing description, page link, repository, and package. It distinguishes itself from the sibling list/search tools by specifying 'одного сервера' (one server), making the singular lookup purpose 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?

The intended use is implied: call this tool when you have an identifier for a specific server and need its catalog card. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_servers or list_atomno_servers, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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 carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by noting the servers are public, come from the catalog, and only include what is already on the site. However, it does not describe other behavioral traits such as ordering, filtering, or whether the list is complete.

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 short and front-loaded, with the main point in the first sentence. The second sentence reinforces an availability constraint, though it slightly overlaps with 'from this catalog'. Overall, it is appropriately sized and readable.

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 parameterless list tool with an output schema, the description conveys the essential scope: it lists public Atomno-family servers that are present in the catalog. It could be improved by clarifying how this relates to sibling tools, but the description is sufficient for a straight list operation.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is effectively complete, so the description does not need to explain parameter details. The baseline is high because there are no input semantics to clarify.

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 clear verb and resource: it lists the public Atomno-family MCP servers from the catalog, with examples of included categories. It is understandable and distinct in content, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools like get_server 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_servers or get_server. The phrase 'from this catalog' and 'only what is already on the site' imply a scope restriction, but the description does not explain when listing is preferable to searching or fetching a single server.

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 provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully indicates the operation is public and read-only in nature, but it does not mention ordering, pagination, or any details about how the category list is returned. This is acceptable for a zero-parameter listing tool but not rich.

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 deliver the full purpose and scope with no filler. The core functionality and public-data note are front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 zero parameters, an output schema, and no nested objects, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without further clarification.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no ambiguity for the agent to resolve. The description adds meaningful semantic detail by stating the result includes per-category server counts.

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 resource being listed — catalog categories — and the specific output includes server counts per category. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual servers or search.

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 'only public data of the site' gives clear context that this is a public listing operation with no authentication or filtering. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the category-scope makes the intended usage obvious relative to the 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds a clear contract: only real matches are returned, no similar substitutes are made, and an empty result is communicated via found=false. This is valuable, though it does not detail how limit or category influence matching.

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 concise sentences, with the purpose and examples front-loaded and the no-match behavior stated separately. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler or repetition.

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?

The output schema exists, so explaining return values is unnecessary, and the description adequately covers the core search behavior and the no-match contract. However, the optional parameters limit and category are not explained, and there is no mention of using list_categories to discover valid category values, leaving a gap for fully correct advanced 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives helpful examples for the query parameter but says nothing about limit or category, leaving their meanings to be inferred solely from property names and defaults.

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 specific action — find an MCP server in the mcp-catalog.ru catalog — and explains the search method: by task wording, with examples such as «ЕГРЮЛ», «postgres», and «курсы ЦБ». This distinguishes it from siblings like get_server, list_atomno_servers, and list_categories as a query-based search tool.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when the agent has a natural-language formulation of a task to search for. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, such as when a specific server ID is already known or when listing the whole catalog is needed.

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