get_mcp_route

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of what a 'route' returns, whether the read hits a live remote server, or any error/not-found behavior. No contradiction with annotations, but no added behavioral context either.

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?

At three words the text is not concise but under-specified; it lacks the information an agent would need rather than trimming redundancy. There is no front-loaded purpose statement, usage note, or anything that earns its place beyond the title.

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 read-only single-parameter getter this is on the lighter side of acceptable, but the description still fails to say what is returned (server config? tool list?) or how it relates to list_mcp_servers_route and get_mcp_tool_config_override_route. With no output schema and a dense sibling namespace, more explanation is warranted.

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?

There is exactly one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents mcp_server_id as 'ID of the MCP Server.' The description contributes no additional meaning (e.g., ID format or where to obtain it), so the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage applies.

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 'Get Mcp Server' essentially restates the tool name (get_mcp_route) without adding a verb-resource-object framing or any scope detail. It does not distinguish this single-server retrieval from the many sibling read tools such as list_mcp_servers_route, get_mcp_tool_config_override_route, or get_tools_route. This is close to a tautology.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this fetches one server by ID (as the schema implies) or returns a collection, nor when to prefer it over list_mcp_servers_route. Only the required mcp_server_id parameter weakly implies the intent.

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