list_mcp_server_user_access

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, establishing it as a safe, read-only operation. The description adds value by detailing the specific fields returned (default access mode, override flags, connection status), enhancing the agent's understanding of the output beyond annotations.

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 that efficiently convey purpose, output, and usage guidance with zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action and resource.

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 output schema exists, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and expected output. The mention of return fields complements the schema. The tool is straightforward (list with pagination), and the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions for id, current_page, page_size. The description does not add additional parameter details, and the baseline for high coverage is 3. The description's mention of return fields does not pertain to parameters.

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?

Clearly states verb 'List', resource 'per-user access for an MCP server', and specifies the return data ('default access mode, override flags, and connection status') and purpose ('audit who can use it'). Explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'update_mcp_server_user_access' by recommending use before it.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('use before update_mcp_server_user_access'), providing clear context for its role in the workflow. However, does not mention when not to use it or alternatives beyond the one sibling.

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