Search MCP server reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: that the corpus is limited to reviewed servers only and that results include verdict, a one-paragraph summary, and a review URL — valuable since no output schema exists.

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?

Three compact sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the examples follow, and the enumeration behavior plus return contents close it out — every sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by naming verdict, summary, and URL. Both parameters are documented and the enumeration case is covered. Only minor gaps remain, such as ordering or how many results a query returns by default versus the limit.

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 description coverage is 100%, which sets a baseline of 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: concrete example queries ('postgres', 'browser automation', 'oauth') clarify that 'capability' is a valid query dimension, and the omit-query behavior for listing is spelled out. The limit parameter's semantics live in the schema and are not duplicated, which is appropriate.

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 ('search reviewed MCP servers') and enumerates the searchable dimensions (name, category, capability) with concrete examples. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling get_server_review by returning summaries plus a review URL, but never names that sibling or states the division of labor explicitly.

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 one useful conditional instruction — 'Omit the query to list every reviewed server' — which tells the agent how to enumerate everything. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_server_review, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the search-vs-fetch decision to inference.

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