mcp-creator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool creates files and updates code, implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. For a tool that modifies project structure, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the purpose and inputs, the second details the outputs. It is front-loaded with key information, though could be slightly more concise by merging sentences without losing clarity.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and basic usage but lacks behavioral details and full parameter semantics, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a tool that performs code generation and updates.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds some meaning by explaining 'project_dir' as the directory of an existing scaffolded server and 'tool' as a JSON tool definition, but does not specify format, constraints, or examples. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully.

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 specific action ('Add a new tool') and resource ('existing scaffolded MCP server'), with detailed scope ('Creates the tool module, service stub, test, and updates server.py'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'scaffold_server' (which creates a new server) and 'build_package' (which builds an existing one).

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 implies usage context ('existing scaffolded MCP server') and prerequisites (project directory and JSON tool definition), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for initial setup vs. ongoing maintenance, or differentiate from 'update_creator_profile' for other modifications.

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