install_repo_mcp_server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Install') but doesn't describe what happens during installation (e.g., whether it modifies system files, requires admin permissions, handles errors, or has side effects like downloading dependencies). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and potential risks.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and method, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information, earning 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?

Given the complexity of an installation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what 'install' entails (e.g., success/failure outcomes, post-installation steps, or error handling). For a tool that likely involves system changes, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an AI agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all three parameters. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain typical values for 'name', usage of 'args', or format examples for 'env'). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 ('Install') and the resource ('an MCP server'), specifying the method ('via npx or uvx'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'install_local_mcp_server' by implying this is for remote/package-based installation rather than local, though not explicitly stated. However, it lacks specific details about what 'install' entails (e.g., global vs. local, dependencies).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions 'via npx or uvx', which hints at usage contexts (Node.js or Python package managers), but it doesn't specify when to choose this over the sibling 'install_local_mcp_server' or other installation methods. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or clear scenarios outlined.

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