get-mcp-docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. 'Make an MCP server' suggests a creation/write operation but provides no information about what gets created, whether authentication is required, what the output looks like, or any side effects. The description offers zero behavioral context beyond the vague action implied.

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 technically concise with just three words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't front-load important information and fails to communicate the tool's purpose effectively. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide sufficient value to justify their inclusion.

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 the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the description is completely inadequate. For a tool that appears to perform some kind of creation/retrieval operation (based on the name 'get-mcp-docs' and description 'Make an MCP server'), the description fails to explain what the tool actually does, what it returns, or how to use it effectively.

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 the single parameter 'name' clearly documented as 'The name of the MCP server.' The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 clearly specify what the tool actually does - whether it creates, retrieves, or generates documentation for MCP servers. The description lacks a specific verb-resource combination and doesn't distinguish from the sibling 'hello-world' tool.

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 absolutely 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. The agent receives no information about appropriate use cases or when this tool would be the right choice.

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