get_mcp_server

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful return-content context (parent integration, status, created time), but does not describe error behavior, permissions, or other operational constraints; with an output schema present, this is adequate but not rich.

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 definition is two front-loaded sentences with useful routing information and little waste. The phrase 'use get_mcp_server' inside get_mcp_server's own description is slightly circular, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 one-parameter read operation with rich annotations and an output schema, the description supplies the necessary scope, return highlights, and sibling differentiation. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the schema already documents that the single id parameter accepts an MCP server ID or slug. The description repeats that same parameter meaning but adds no syntax, format, or lookup nuance beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve one MCP server') and immediately scopes it to retrieval by id or slug. It also clearly separates the server record from the parent integration, so an agent can distinguish it from get_mcp_integration.

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 explicitly routes the agent: use this tool for the MCP server record and get_mcp_integration for the parent integration's URL, auth, and transport configuration. It lacks broader exclusion guidance, such as when to use list_mcp_servers instead, so it falls short of full 5-level usage guidance.

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