get_mcp_alternatives

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral detail — results are constrained to the same category and ordered by fit plus evidence — but says nothing about pagination or result shape for a list tool.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action and packs the ranking/scope qualifiers without a wasted clause.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description conveys what comes back (same-category alternatives ranked by fit and evidence). Minor gaps remain around result count defaults and what 'evidence' concretely means, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so both 'id' and 'limit' are documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes the id concept ('to a given server ID') and adds no format, ID-source, or limit-interaction detail beyond the schema.

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 (List) and resource (alternative MCP servers) plus the scope constraint 'to a given server ID — same category, ranked by fit'. This implicitly separates it from siblings like search_mcp_servers and compare_mcp_servers, though it never names them 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?

The phrase 'to a given server ID' implies the use case (finding replacements for a known server), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative such as recommend_mcp_stack or compare_mcp_servers for related needs.

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