List racked MCP servers

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

Annotations provide only a title with no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses read-only behavior, that it 'Does not probe remote health,' and that an empty list means no servers registered in this process. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences: purpose and fields, when to use, empty-list meaning, read-only safety and non-probing behavior. Every sentence adds value and the key information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description covers purpose, usage timing, result interpretation, and behavioral caveats. An output schema exists to document return values, so nothing essential is missing. The sibling context and the boundary with rack_add/rack_remove are clearly articulated.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema has 100% coverage (empty object), which meets the baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, but it does describe the output fields, which is a small bonus. No deduction needed for a parameterless tool.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List MCP servers currently mounted on the SuperAgentic rack' and even enumerates the returned fields (name, command or URL, notes). It differentiates itself from mutating siblings by explicitly labeling the operation read-only and naming rack_add/rack_remove as the mutation tools.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use after rack_add to confirm membership.' It also clarifies the empty-list interpretation, preventing false conclusions, and explicitly routes mutations to rack_add/rack_remove. This is strong usage direction with no ambiguity.

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