get_mcp_install_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with that. It adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: the operation returns setups for every major client plus documentation, and the single-client narrowing behavior. No auth, rate-limit, or error-shape detail, but that is a minor gap for a read-only lookup.

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?

Two sentences with the main action front-loaded and the modifier stated last. The 13-name client list is somewhat enumerative padding that duplicates the schema enum, costing a point but not much readability.

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, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (per-client configs and docs) and how to narrow it, which is the information an agent needs. It omits return format details (e.g., config snippets vs. links), but nothing essential is missing.

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%, so both `id` and `client` are already documented, and the long client enumeration largely repeats the enum values. The one real addition is the implied default ('Pass `client` for just one' means all clients are returned otherwise), which earns the baseline 3 rather than more.

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 ('Get setup') and resource ('one MCP server by ID') and enumerates exactly what is returned: per-client install configs plus documentation. The resource is clearly distinct from siblings like get_mcp_alternatives, compare_mcp_servers, and recommend_mcp_stack, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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 context of use is clear (fetch install configuration for a specific server) and the optional narrowing path is stated: 'Pass `client` for just one.' It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of explicit when/when-not routing.

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