mco_list_servers

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

In the absence of annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. The word 'List' implies a read-only operation, and it states the informational output (description, tool counts). However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, error behavior, or ordering. For a simple no-parameter list tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence that concisely states the action and output. No redundant filler or restatement of the name.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description succinctly communicates the return content (description and tool counts). It is sufficient for the agent to understand what will happen. Minor gap: it doesn't mention what happens if no servers are configured, but that's not critical.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details since there are none; nothing further is 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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'all configured MCO sub-servers', while specifying the output includes 'description and tool counts'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mco_status or mco_gateway_status, which focus on status rather than enumerating sub-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 implies the tool is for discovering/enumerating configured servers, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as mco_status or mco_gateway_status. The usage context is only implied.

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