mcporter_list_servers

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

Despite having no annotations, the description discloses that the list is only an example, warns about large MCPs consuming context, and explains the active vs available distinction. This goes well beyond the schema and covers behavioral traits that an agent needs.

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 long but very well-structured with headers and bullet points. Every section (purpose, partitions, categories, usage flow) adds value, and the main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 a list operation, and the description explains the return partitions, provides usage workflow with sibling tools, and includes contextual caveats. Given that an output schema exists, no return format explanation is necessary, so the description is complete.

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 description does not mention the two parameters (timeout_ms, include_available) at all, and the input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage). The param names are only weakly self-explanatory, so the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 '列出所有已加载和可激活的 MCP 服务器' (list all loaded and activatable MCP servers), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mcporter_activate_mcp and mcporter_call_tool by focusing on listing.

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 an explicit usage flow: call this to view active.servers, activate large MCPs first, use mcporter_call_tool, then deactivate. This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool vs the alternatives, plus context warnings.

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