opencode_mcp_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context—such as permission requirements, rate limits, or how the directory parameter affects scope. It only restates the tool's purpose without disclosing any non-obvious behavior.

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 a single sentence that states the tool's function directly with no filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, containing exactly the information needed for purpose 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?

For a simple read-only status tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and clarifying annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. The schema explains the directory parameter, and the output schema documents return values. However, the description does not explicitly mention that the directory parameter changes the scope of the status check, which could be relevant for project-specific configurations.

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 100%, and the directory parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning or usage nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Get' and names the exact resource: 'status of all MCP servers configured in opencode'. This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from related tools like opencode_health (general health) or opencode_status (overall status) by targeting MCP servers specifically.

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 when MCP server status is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like opencode_health or opencode_status, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. There is minimal contextual guidance beyond what the name already conveys.

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