ManyCP MCP server

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

Annotations mark it as a non-idempotent, open-world write; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing what files are read, what is written and returned (listing, warnings, per-directory plan), the duplicate-add failure mode, and the billing requirement. It also clarifies the tool does not publish, which meaningfully bounds the side effect.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core action and then layers in mechanics, exclusions, and requirements, with every sentence carrying information. It is dense as a single block, so slightly less scannable than an ideally structured definition, but not padded.

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?

Even with no output schema, the description summarizes the return payload, the non-submission boundary, the error case, and the prerequisites. An agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly and act on the result.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents repo_url and its accepted formats. The description reinforces that the repository is public but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 verb (add) and resource (an MCP server) plus the exact source (public GitHub repo), and it enumerates what ManyCP derives from the repo. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like update_listing and submit_server, which it names.

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 delimits scope ('It does not submit anywhere') and provides the follow-up workflow: review the listing, fix with update_listing, then call submit_server. It also states preconditions (launch credit, Starter/Pro plan) and the duplicate-repo error condition, so an agent knows when not to call it as well.

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 read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: only 10 of 26 directories have a public lookup (rest return 'unknown'), no login or server needed, works on every plan and on repos you don't own, and results are cached ~10 minutes. This is exactly the operational detail an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then behavior, then usage routing, with every sentence carrying distinct information. Slightly dense with several clauses packed into one sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by explaining return values (listed/missing with URL, or unknown), plus auth-free operation, caching, and plan coverage. Nothing an agent needs to call it 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 itself documents the repo_url format (full URL or owner/name). The description only reinforces that the repo must be public, adding no new syntax or constraint beyond the schema, so the 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+resource ('Check which MCP directories already list a public GitHub repo') and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming add_server and submit_server as the tools it complements. An agent can identify the tool's role 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?

Explicitly says when to use it: 'before add_server to show the gap, or after submit_server to see what went live.' This gives both the timing and the named alternatives, leaving nothing to inference.

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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by defining every status value (live, pr_open, needs_update, action_required, etc.) and disclosing that links to PRs, live pages, and the dashboard are returned, plus the 'works on every plan' note.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the status vocabulary, then links, then the parameter note. The long status enumeration is information-dense rather than wasteful, though the trailing 'Read-only, works on every plan' and identifier sentence partially duplicate annotations and schema.

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 no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating statuses and naming returned links, giving the agent a usable picture of the response. It stops short of explaining ordering or directory-matching rules, but is otherwise complete for a one-parameter read tool.

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%, so the accepted identifier forms (id, slug, GitHub repo, exact name) are already documented in the schema and the description largely repeats them. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries this burden.

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 (Get) and resource (one server's full listing) plus scope ('its status in every directory that fits it'). An agent can distinguish this from the sibling list_servers by the singular 'one server' framing.

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 implied – fetch details for a single known server – but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus siblings like list_servers or check_listings. The mention that the identifier accepts several forms helps selection but doesn't state when this tool is the right choice.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so restating 'Read-only' is redundant. The description nonetheless adds value beyond annotations by stating it takes no input, works on every plan, and enumerating the returned fields (filing method, local/remote fit, dependency ordering, step-by-step behavior).

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?

Front-loads the resource and count, then the return fields, then the usage cue. The middle sentence is a long enumeration of returned fields, dense but each item is informative; slightly wordy rather than wasteful.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values, and it does so field by field (id, name, URL, filing mode, server-type fit, ordering, per-step actions). Combined with the plan/input notes, nothing needed to call it 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'takes no input' and clarifies that returned ids are the input to submit_server, tying the output to a concrete downstream parameter.

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 ('List every MCP directory ManyCP can file a server in (26 today)') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing at submit_server as the consumer of its output. An agent can tell what this returns 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?

Explicitly names the two situations it serves: answering 'where can I list my MCP server?' and picking directory ids for submit_server. This routes the agent to the correct downstream sibling and leaves little to inference.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower; the description still adds non-obvious context by stating it works on every plan and describing the shape of the returned status summary ('3 live, 1 PR open, 16 not started'). It stops short of describing pagination or ordering, keeping it from a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the return shape, then the routing rule. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (id, slug, repo, version, status summary). For a zero-parameter read-only list tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still adds semantic value by explaining that the returned id and slug are accepted as the `server` argument by every other tool, which is not derivable from this tool's own empty schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('List the MCP servers on this ManyCP account') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_server, which it routes to for single-server detail. An agent can separate list_servers from get_server without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Call this first when the user says "my server" and you do not know which one they mean') plus an exclusion/alternative ('Use get_server for the detail of one'). This is exactly the when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance the dimension asks for.

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 annotations already declaring openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description still adds substantial head-of-call context: the $19 launch credit, the one-PR-per-repo-per-directory safeguard, the separate PR opened on the user's own repo (never a fork) with named files, which directories wait for a merge, and the GitHub-auth error path. Note a mild tension with idempotentHint=false — the description asserts repeated calls are safe for PR creation — but this narrows rather than contradicts the hint.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and mostly free of filler, but it is a single dense paragraph mixing outcomes, billing, PR mechanics, and consent. It is appropriately sized for a tool this complex, though the wall-of-text form makes scanning harder than bulleted structure would.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining the return shape ('Per directory the result says what happened') and the error/retry contract. Combined with the billing, consent, and merge-gating details, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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 baseline is 3, and the description slightly exceeds it: it explains what omitting `directories` does and justifies the consent_star constraint (the awesome-remote-mcp-servers list rejects PRs from accounts that have not starred it), which is meaning beyond the schema's wording.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'File a saved server in MCP directories.' The described scope (per-directory publishing with distinct outcome modes) is concrete and distinguishable in concept, but it never explicitly contrasts with siblings like add_server or sync_server, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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 states exactly how to scope the call ('Leave `directories` out to send to every directory that fits and is ready, or pass ids from list_directories to pick some') and points to list_directories/list_servers for inputs. It also gives the precondition for consent_star and the recovery path when GitHub access is missing, which is genuine when/when-not guidance.

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 declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the downstream effects (updates the listing, marks stale directories needs_update, opens PRs only when entry text changed) and the no-op behavior when nothing changed. It does not describe return format or error cases, but the mutation semantics are unusually well disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then effects, then the automatic-sync caveat and prerequisite. The parenthetical detailing directory-type-specific behavior is dense but earnable, though it is the longest single clause and slightly taxes readability.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by stating what happens on change and that it reports when nothing changed. Combined with prerequisites and side-effect detail, an agent has what it needs, though explicit guidance on the response payload is absent.

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 single parameter is fully documented in-schema, including accepted formats and the pointer to list_servers, so the baseline is 3. The description's reference to "a server's GitHub repo" only loosely contextualizes the parameter and adds no syntax beyond the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Re-read a server's GitHub repo right now") and enumerates exactly what it pulls: latest release/tag, package version, README, description, topics. This is clearly distinct from siblings like check_listings, update_listing, and get_server, which read or modify rather than pull-from-source.

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?

Explicitly states when to reach for it ("use this to sync now, for example right after a release") and gives the implicit when-not by noting paid plans sync automatically (Pro hourly, Starter daily). It also states the prerequisite: "Needs a launched server or a paid plan." Nothing is left to inference.

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true), the description discloses the partial-update semantics, that 'tools' is a full replacement of the existing list, that empty strings clear fields, that saving is atomic ('Saves at once'), that directories lag until sync/submit, that version/packages/repo are GitHub-sourced and non-editable, and that a paid credit is required. Nothing contradicts the annotations and the extra behavioral detail is substantial.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, then behavior, then the field reference. Every sentence carries information, though the inline field list partially restates schema descriptions, making it slightly long for a reference block.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with 1 required param, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers replacement semantics, clearing behavior, the required server identifier, syncing caveats, and prerequisites - everything an agent needs to call it correctly without opening the schema.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds rationale and consolidation beyond the schema, e.g. short_description's 100-char limit exists 'because the official MCP Registry rejects longer' and the tools field 'replaces the old list'. Some field limits duplicate the schema, but the added reasoning and the single-pass field summary lift it above baseline.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource ('Edit the listing ManyCP sends to every directory') and even names the aggregation scope, so the agent knows exactly what is mutated. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing the 'next sync or submit', which routes to sync_server/submit_server rather than update_listing.

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 gives clear operating context: 'Send only the fields you want to change; the rest stay as they are' and 'Directories that already list the server keep their current text until the next sync or submit.' It also states prerequisites ('Needs a launch credit, Starter or Pro'). It stops short of explicitly saying when to use add_server vs update_listing vs submit_server, so it is strong context rather than full alternative routing.

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