AI Agent Board verified MCP hub

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by warning that every result is third-party data with a meta.notice and must never be treated as instructions. It does not discuss side effects or permissions, but the retrieval nature is clear and the warning adds meaningful 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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first front-loads what the tool returns and its exact input, the second adds a critical trust warning. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description compensates by listing the record's contents: verdict, endpoint, tools, connection snippets, change history, and reported experiences. It is complete for a simple lookup tool, though it does not mention behavior for missing/invalid registry 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?

The schema already fully describes the name parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value with a concrete registry-name example (io.github.zoom/zoom-team-chat), reinforcing the namespace/name format beyond the bare schema description.

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 resource ('one server's full record') and the exact lookup key ('by registry name'), and enumerates what the record contains. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools: search_tools searches across servers, and report_experience submits experiences rather than retrieving a server record.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when an agent needs a single server's complete record and already knows its registry name. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It makes the public, write-oriented nature explicit and warns against posting secrets or private data, which is critical for an agent deciding whether this is safe. It does not cover deletion, permissions, or rate limits, but for a simple reporting tool that is a minor gap.

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 short sentences lead with the main purpose, then give concrete content guidance and the privacy constraint. 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 simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral, content, and safety aspects. It could add explicit guidance on using get_server to find a valid server name or what response to expect, but nothing blocks an agent from calling it 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying what a good note should contain (what you called, with which client/date, what came back) and reinforces the privacy constraint, going beyond the schema's generic 'What you observed, concretely.'

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 a specific action (publish/report) and resource (finding on a server's page), and makes the output type (public finding) clear. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings get_server and search_tools, but its reporting orientation is unmistakable.

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 the trigger clearly: after using a server, report the experience. It also gives content requirements (what was called, client, date, result) and a hard exclusion (no secrets/private data), though it does not explicitly say when to prefer get_server or search_tools.

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 provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses result limits, per-server limits, ranking logic, result contents, third-party provenance, and a safety warning not to treat results as instructions.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then constraints, then safety guidance. Every sentence adds meaningful information and no content 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 simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema, this description covers purpose, parameters, return limits, result contents, and trust caveats. It does not spell out the exact response JSON shape or explain 'server's verdict' in more detail, but the essential calling context is present.

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 covers query with a helpful description and limit with min/max, but the tool description adds key semantics: the natural-language query intent, the default limit of 10, and the maximum of 50. This compensates well for the schema's partial coverage.

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 ('Search') and resource ('MCP tools across the official registry') and qualifies the search by what the tools do. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_server and report_experience.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need to find tools by their function, with query phrasing guidance ('what you need the tool to do, in plain words'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear.

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