mcporter_activate_mcp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'activate' (a mutation) and mentions a confirmation step, but it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what the activation actually changes. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 brief and front-loaded: purpose, a post-requisite, parameter explanation, and an example—all in three concise sentences with no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple and there is an output schema (so return values need not be described). The description covers purpose and the name parameter, but leaves timeout_ms unexplained and lacks details on activation behavior. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0%. The description explains that 'name' is taken from mcporter_list_servers().available, which adds meaning. However, the timeout_ms parameter is not addressed at all, leaving one of two parameters undocumented. Partial compensation only.

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: '激活一个大型 MCP' (activate an MCP), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like mcporter_deactivate_mcp and mcporter_list_servers. The example also reinforces the intended use.

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 usage context: the name parameter must be obtained from mcporter_list_servers().available, and after activation, one should re-call mcporter_list_servers to confirm. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the post-activation step gives actionable guidance.

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