mcp-creator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: the generated server 'runs immediately with stub implementations', mentions licensing gating via 'paid=true', and explains hosting options with defaults. It doesn't cover error conditions, performance, or security implications, but provides substantial operational context beyond basic functionality.

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 efficiently structured with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then details key parameters in a logical flow. Every sentence adds essential information about functionality or configuration options, making it dense yet highly readable.

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 (8 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description provides substantial context about what the tool does and key configurations. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. However, it doesn't cover all parameters equally, leaving gaps for output_dir and env_vars.

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 description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for 5 parameters (package_name, description, tools, paid, paid_tools, hosting) by explaining their purpose and usage, but doesn't address output_dir or env_vars at all. With 8 total parameters and partial coverage, it provides moderate value beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('scaffold a complete, runnable MCP server project') and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on initial project generation rather than incremental additions (like add_tool) or publishing operations. It specifies the verb 'scaffold' and resource 'MCP server project' with concrete details about what gets generated.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (creating a new server project with specific configurations like paid features and hosting options). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., using add_tool for incremental additions instead). The guidance is practical but lacks explicit exclusions.

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