mcporter_help

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what each parameter combination returns (usage guide, tool list, parameter format, raw definitions with health status), giving a good sense of the tool's read-only, exploratory nature. It does not mention error handling or timeouts, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 well structured with bullet points and a clear progression from simple to advanced usage, and every section adds value. It is somewhat longer than a minimal description, but the examples and mode breakdown justify the length. No filler or redundant content is present.

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's multiple query modes and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers all main invocation patterns and provides illustrative examples. It does not mention timeout_ms or potential error scenarios, but overall an agent can confidently decide when and how to invoke this tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the server, tool, and raw parameters with examples, but it completely omits the timeout_ms parameter, leaving that parameter's purpose and impact undocumented. This is a notable gap for a tool that may need to handle large MCP definitions.

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 states clearly that the tool explores MCP server tools and parameters, and it distinguishes itself from siblings by describing specific output modes (usage guide vs. tool list vs. parameter format vs. raw JSON). This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation from mcporter_list_servers and mcporter_call_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?

It provides explicit progressive query patterns (no args, server, server+tool, raw=true) and gives concrete examples, such as mcporter_help(server="xiaohongshu"). This tells the agent exactly when to use each level of detail and implies when not to use it (e.g., when only a server list is needed, use mcporter_list_servers).

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