mcporter_call_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that arguments must be a JSON object and directs to help, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, error behavior, or whether the call is read-only or mutating.

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 concise, with a compact parameter list, an example, and a critical warning. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant information.

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 generic nature of a remote tool-call function, the description provides the essential information: server and tool names, arguments formatting, and a pointer to details via mcporter_help. The output schema exists for return values, so lack of return details is acceptable. It does not mention timeout or output format, but these are covered by schema defaults.

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 adds meaning for server_name, tool_name, and arguments, including an example and the JSON-object requirement. However, it omits timeout_ms and output_format, which are only documented via schema defaults.

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 calls a tool on a specified server, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like listing servers or managing activation, but does not explicitly differentiate itself by naming an alternative.

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 gives a clear prerequisite: use mcporter_help to query parameter format. It also provides an example, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or mention of alternative tools.

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