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

The description goes well beyond the sparse annotations, disclosing that invoke works even when the MCP is not installed, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment, and that writes require workspace owner/admin. It also reveals installed_in_toolkit vs workspace flags, providing rich behavioral context.

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 information-dense but presented as a single wall of text, mixing core flow, permissions, prompt library, and examples. It could benefit from structured sections or bullets. The use of 'pontualmente' may also confuse readers.

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 complexity (23 parameters, no output schema, minimal annotations), the description covers the main functionality thoroughly: discovery, invocation, installation, billing, permissions, and prompt library. It omits some actions (e.g., resume) and specific params, but overall provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the action parameter and its key values (search, describe, install, invoke, list_tools, etc.) and how tool_id is used. However, many secondary parameters (tier_slug, immediate, cancel_reason, etc.) are left to self-evident names, so coverage is incomplete but still valuable.

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 identifies the tool as the official mcp.ai marketplace, both a catalog of MCPs/tools and the way to run them. It outlines the core flow (search → describe → invoke) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate and connect by being the central hub for discovery and execution.

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 provides explicit workflow guidance: 'Core flow: action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile ... → invoke RUNS that tool.' It also contrasts install vs invoke ('Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT ... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use') and notes list_tools for current capabilities. It doesn't explicitly contrast sibling tools, but the action-level guidance is strong.

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