validate_mcp_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions that connectivity testing spawns processes with a 5s timeout, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, leaving uncertainty.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource. Every word adds value, and the structure is clean.

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 validation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and key behavior. It could mention return formats or failure modes but is otherwise complete.

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%, so the schema already documents the test parameter and its behavior. The description adds no new meaning beyond restating the optional connectivity test, so baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool validates MCP server configurations and specifies three specific checks: JSON syntax, command existence, and optional connectivity testing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like health_check or run_doctor.

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 for validating MCP configs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like health_check or run_maintenance. No exclusion criteria or comparison is provided.

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