create_mcp_server

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it requires a pre-existing parent integration and must be followed by capability/access configuration to be useful. Return-value detail is partly redundant with the output schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the prerequisite and follow-up. Zero filler and nothing redundant.

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?

With a full output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining pieces an agent needs: the dependency on an existing integration and the natural next tools. Minor gaps around auth/permission requirements keep it from a 5.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add format, constraints, or slug-generation behavior beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create an MCP server") and immediately narrows scope with "under an existing integration," which distinguishes it from the sibling create_mcp_integration. An agent can tell the two apart without inspecting either schema.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite workflow ("use list_mcp_integrations first to find the parent integration") and follow-up guidance (capabilities or access tools to configure it). It does not explicitly cover when to prefer create_mcp_integration instead, but the parent-integration framing implies the boundary.

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