mcp_list_servers

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description implies a read-only operation by using 'List,' which is a positive signal, but it does not explicitly state that no modifications are made, whether authentication is required, or if the list reflects real-time status or cached data. For a simple list operation, 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 description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('List') and resource ('MCP servers'), with no unnecessary words. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, simple list operation), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does. It names the primary output (servers and their connection status). It does not explain return format in detail, but the description implies a list of items, which is adequate for this context.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds no extra parameter information beyond what the schema provides. There is nothing further needed.

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 tool's function: 'List all available MCP servers and their connection status.' It uses a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('MCP servers'), and includes the scope ('connection status'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_mcp_connections, leaving some potential ambiguity about which tool to use for listing connections vs. servers.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_mcp_connections, ghl_mcp_status, or any other listing/status tools. There are no prerequisites, recommended scenarios, or exclusions provided.

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