mcp-pulse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the live network connection, the exact handshake performed (initialize and tools/list), that no credentials are sent, and a 10 s timeout. It doesn't discuss failure modes (unreachable URL, non-MCP endpoint) or possible side effects of probing arbitrary URLs, which keeps it short of 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?

A single sentence with zero filler; the action, its mechanics, its limits and the routing advice are all front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter probe with no output schema, the description tells the agent what is returned (status, protocol, tools, estimated token cost) and the operational constraints. Nothing needed to invoke 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?

Only one parameter (url) and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself documenting it as an HTTPS MCP endpoint URL. The description adds no syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 4 for a fully documented single parameter 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: connects to an MCP server URL now and reports status, protocol, tools and token cost. It also explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling lookup_server, so an agent can route between the two 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 when-to-use rule: 'For registry servers prefer lookup_server, which has exact counts.' That names the alternative and the condition that selects it, 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?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses that the result is a 'latest probe' (implying a cached/stale snapshot rather than a live check) and what the payload contains, but says nothing about cost, rate limits, permission needs, or behavior on unknown/unregistered servers.

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 compact sentences with zero filler; the returned-field list comes first and the accepted identifier forms immediately after, so the essential information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema read tool this is nearly complete: the accepted identifier forms and the informal shape of the response are both covered. The only gap is the check_server overlap and any failure mode for unresolvable names.

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 a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents nameOrUrl. The description adds the concrete name format 'io.github.owner/name' as an example and notes the URL alternative, which is modest but real added meaning over 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?

Specific verb+resource: retrieves the latest probe for exactly one registry server, and it enumerates the returned fields (status, protocol, tool count, token cost, latency). It implicitly separates itself from plural siblings like search_servers and registry_summary, but never names them explicitly.

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 by 'one server' plus the accepted identifier format, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and nothing to disambiguate it from the near-synonymous check_server sibling (e.g., whether this reads a cached result while check_server runs a fresh probe).

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, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses data freshness ('latest daily run') and the shape of the aggregate, but says nothing about whether results are cached, how often the daily run refreshes, or any access constraints. No params means low risk, so this partial disclosure is defensible 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the aggregate's contents into a compact list with no filler. It is slightly list-like and omits an explicit verb, 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?

For a zero-parameter, annotation-free read tool with no output schema, enumerating the returned aggregates (counts, percentiles, protocol versions, heaviest servers) effectively substitutes for a schema. The remaining gap is refresh/caching semantics, which is minor.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No misleading parameter hints are present.

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 names the resource concretely and enumerates what the aggregate contains (server counts, token cost percentiles, protocol versions, heaviest servers), so an agent knows this is a report-style read, not a per-server lookup. It is clearly distinct in substance from check_server/lookup_server/search_servers, though it never says so explicitly.

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 only implied: the aggregate framing suggests 'use this for an overview, use the siblings for individual servers,' but no when/when-not condition or alternative is stated. An agent can infer the split from the sibling names, but the description does not do the routing work.

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, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses pagination behavior ('up to 20 servers per page') and the default sort ('token cost by default'), but does not state that it is read-only, whether results are exhaustive, or any rate/auth constraints.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by filtering, sorting, and pagination details. No wasted words or redundant restatement.

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 four-parameter search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 50% schema description coverage, the description covers core search behavior but omits read-only guarantees and deeper parameter guidance. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 50%. The description adds useful meaning by specifying the searchable fields for query, the default sort key, and page size. However, the sort and status enum values remain unexplained and the 'optional filters' phrasing is vague regarding status semantics.

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 ('Find') and resource ('servers'), names searchable fields (name, title, description, host), and notes optional filters plus default sorting. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like lookup_server or check_server.

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: search by words with optional filters and pagination. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over lookup_server, check_server, or registry_summary, leaving the agent to infer.

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