gateway.connect_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action ('connect or start') without disclosing side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or safety considerations. For a tool that may alter server state, more transparency is needed.

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 two sentences, concise and to the point. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition. The structure is well-suited for quick understanding.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers its purpose and scope. However, for a gateway tool in a diverse set, slightly more context on when to use this over sibling tools would improve completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already defines the parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'by name', which is redundant. No additional context on parameter format, source, or constraints is given, so it meets the baseline but adds minimal value.

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 clearly states the action ('connect or start'), the resource ('downstream MCP server'), and the method ('by name'). It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying it resolves configured, provisioned manifest, and registered discovered servers, making the purpose specific and distinct.

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 implies when to use (to connect servers that are configured, provisioned, or discovered), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Sibling tools like 'provision' or 'register_discovered_server' are not contrasted, leaving some ambiguity.

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