test_mcp_server

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

Annotations mark this as non-read-only and openWorld, and the description explains why: it "sends a live check," i.e., an outbound network call, and reports back success, latency, HTTP status, and error text. That adds real context about the operation's nature and output shape. It doesn't mention auth requirements, timeouts, or that no state is persisted despite the non-read-only hint, leaving some ambiguity.

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 tight sentences with no filler: purpose and return payload first, then the usage trigger. Everything is front-loaded and each clause earns its place.

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?

A one-parameter, output-schema-backed tool whose annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies purpose, live-call behavior, and call timing — nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the single `id` parameter is already documented as "The MCP server ID or slug to test." The description adds no further detail about the identifier format or whether slug vs. numeric ID behaves differently, 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+resource: "Test connectivity to an MCP server," and elaborates with "Sends a live check and returns success, response time, HTTP status, and any error." That clearly separates it from config-reading siblings like get_mcp_server or list_mcp_server_connections, which retrieve stored data rather than performing a live probe.

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 concrete triggering conditions: "use this before changing configuration or when diagnosing reachability." These are actionable when-to-use cues. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative (e.g., get_mcp_server for stored status), so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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