get-mcp-docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description 'Make an MCP server' doesn't reveal any behavioral traits - it doesn't specify whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are needed, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.

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?

While the description is technically concise with just three words, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The single sentence doesn't earn its place by providing meaningful information - it's too brief to be helpful. Good conciseness balances brevity with completeness, which this description fails to achieve.

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 that this is a single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'making an MCP server' entails, what the tool actually does, what it returns, or how to interpret results. For even a simple tool, this level of incompleteness makes it unusable without additional context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with a single parameter 'name' clearly documented as 'The name of the MCP server'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 'Make an MCP server' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get-mcp-docs' in different words. It doesn't specify what 'make' means in this context (create, generate, fetch, etc.) or what 'MCP server' refers to. While it includes a verb+resource, it's too vague to distinguish from the sibling 'hello-world' tool or understand the actual purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or comparison to the sibling 'hello-world' tool. It doesn't indicate what scenarios would require 'making an MCP server' or what the expected outcome should be.

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