Free preview-grade trust report for one registry MCP server: a transparent 0-100 grade from cached signals (registry status, endpoint presence, freshness). The full report with a LIVE endpoint reachability probe + component breakdown is paid (verify_mcp_server_report, x402).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| server | Yes | MCP registry server name (use search_mcp_registry to find one) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: the report is based on cached signals (not live), uses registry status/endpoint presence/freshness, and produces a transparent 0-100 grade. It also notes that the live probe is only available in the paid version. This is solid but doesn't mention potential staleness or other limitations.
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 sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the core purpose and the second clarifying the paid alternative. No unnecessary words; every sentence contributes to understanding.
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 tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete: it covers the output (grade), the data sources (cached signals), the scope (one registry server), and the tier difference. The reference to search_mcp_registry in the schema covers prerequisites.
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 provides a meaningful description of the 'server' parameter (registry server name, use search_mcp_registry). The tool description does not add significant parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema states, so it meets the baseline of 3.
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's function: producing a free preview-grade trust report with a 0-100 grade from cached signals. It distinguishes itself from the paid full report (verify_mcp_server_report) by explicitly naming the alternative, so there is no confusion.
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 explicitly contrasts this free preview with the paid full report (verify_mcp_server_report), indicating when to use each. It also references search_mcp_registry (in the schema description) as a prerequisite for finding server names, which guides usage.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose: free vs. paid, list vs. snapshot, search vs. verify, and the standalone risk assessment. Even the similar verification tools are differentiated by 'preview' versus 'full report', leaving no ambiguity.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, search_, verify_, assess_). The only outlier is 'feeds_status', which uses a noun phrase instead of a verb-led form, creating a minor inconsistency.
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for its dual purpose of MCP registry access and x402 services. Each tool adds distinct value, and the count comfortably fits the typical 3-15 range without feeling bloated or thin.
The tool set covers the full read-only lifecycle for both feeds: free search, paid full snapshots, delta changes, trending highlights, per-server verification (preview and full), live service listing, and aggregate status. No obvious dead ends for the stated purpose.