Return the open Agent-Tool Discoverability Standard (v0.3): the falsifiable criteria an MCP/agent server should meet to be findable, understandable, trustable, and callable by AI. Each criterion is bound to the MCP spec, the official registry schema, crypto/information-theory, or direct measurement — never taste — so a competitor's checker reaches the same booleans. Free and open forever.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds context about the standard's content and philosophy. It does not contradict annotations but also does not fully describe behavioral traits like return format or side effects.
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 front-loaded with the key action and provides additional context in a few sentences. It is efficient but slightly verbose in explaining the standard's philosophy.
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 should clarify the return type or format. It covers the tool's purpose well but lacks specifics on how the result is delivered (e.g., JSON string, markdown).
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?
No parameters exist, and the schema covers them fully (100%). Baseline score of 4 applies since the description adds nothing about parameters, which is appropriate.
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 it returns the Agent-Tool Discoverability Standard v0.3 and explains its purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings like lookup_readiness by focusing on the criteria document itself, though it does not explicitly call out alternatives.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lookup_readiness or verify_mcp_ready. The description explains what the tool does but not the decision context for invoking it.
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.