mcporter_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what each action does but does not state whether the tool makes any changes, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The name and actions imply read-only status checks, but this is not explicitly asserted.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a clear action list, and two usage examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the front-loaded summary ensures quick comprehension.

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?

For a simple status tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the primary behavior and the main action parameter adequately. The missing timeout_ms explanation is a minor gap, but overall the agent has enough context to use the tool correctly, especially since the output schema likely covers return values.

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 input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the 'action' parameter's two enum values and the default, but completely omits any explanation of the 'timeout_ms' parameter, leaving its purpose and usage undocumented.

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?

Description clearly states 'check mcporter status and configuration' with a specific verb and resource. It further enumerates two distinct actions (doctor and version) with examples, making its purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from sibling tools like list_servers or 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: to verify the configuration file (doctor, default) or show the version. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the action list and examples imply the appropriate scenarios. The absence of exclusions is acceptable for a status-checking tool.

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