mcp-builder-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is part of a workflow (step 3/6), has dependencies on prior steps, and describes the return structure ('bundles with endpoint_count and endpoints_sample; dependency_endpoints; total_operations'). However, it doesn't mention error conditions, performance characteristics, or authentication needs that would be helpful for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 reasonably concise but includes workflow boilerplate ('Step 3 of 6', 'Completes workflow step 3') that could be streamlined. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the parameter explanation is buried and incomplete. Some sentences like 'Next: run select_endpoint_bundle(choice) (step 4)' feel redundant.

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 complexity (7 parameters, workflow tool, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose, workflow position, and return structure, but fails to adequately explain the numerous parameters or provide behavioral context needed for proper tool selection and invocation. The lack of output schema means the description should ideally explain return values more thoroughly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions that the tool 'Uses stored spec and inferred_segment from prior steps if not provided' and lists some parameters ('spec or openapi_input; optional agent_creator_role, agent_task_workflow, inferred_segment'), but doesn't explain what these parameters mean, their formats, or how they affect the proposal. With 7 undocumented parameters, this is insufficient.

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's purpose: 'Propose three endpoint bundles (Green / Yellow / Red) based on the API and optional user context.' It specifies the verb ('propose'), resource ('endpoint bundles'), and scope ('three bundles with color coding'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'select_endpoint_bundle' beyond mentioning it as the next step.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Step 3 of 6' and 'Requires step 2 (prompt_mcp_developer_context).' It mentions dependencies on prior steps and optional parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare it to alternatives among siblings.

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