my-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's interactive ('requesting structured input from the user'), involves user prompting, and returns a response or error. However, it lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or specific error conditions. The description doesn't contradict any annotations (none exist).

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by explanatory context. The Args and Returns sections are structured but not strictly part of the description text. The prose is efficient with minimal waste, though the explanatory sentence about elicitation could be integrated more tightly.

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 moderate complexity (interactive user input), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and basic behavior but lacks details on the 'ctx' parameter, error handling specifics, and interaction patterns. With output schema present, it doesn't need to explain returns, but other gaps remain.

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 documents one parameter ('message') with its default and purpose, but omits the 'ctx' parameter entirely. With 2 parameters total and only 1 described, it adds some meaning but leaves a significant gap (50% coverage), failing to fully compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Demonstrates MCP elicitation by requesting structured input from the user via the MCP client.' It specifies the verb ('requesting structured input') and resource ('user'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on elicitation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (like 'annotatedMessage' or 'structuredContent' which might also involve user interaction).

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: 'Elicitation allows servers to interactively ask users for information during a tool call.' This suggests it's for interactive scenarios, but it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives (e.g., when to use this vs. 'annotatedMessage' or 'structuredContent'). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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