recommend_mcp_stack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention read-only vs. write behavior, whether it involves external calls, or execution time expectations. It only states the high-level outcome without any side effects or prerequisites.

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, focused sentence that clearly states the purpose and provides examples. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids fluff, making it easy to scan quickly.

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 recommendation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a basic level of completeness. However, it lacks details on the structure of the recommended stack (e.g., what servers are included, how many, or how recommendations are generated). Given the context signals, it is minimally adequate but could be enriched.

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% with only one parameter 'role' and a description of example values. The description reinforces that the role should be a developer role or workflow and provides examples, adding value beyond the schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on allowed values or expected format beyond examples.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb 'Recommend' and resource 'curated multi-tool MCP server stack'. It specifies the target input (developer role or workflow) and provides examples. It distinguishes from siblings like search_mcp_servers by focusing on curated recommendations rather than search results.

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 usage context ('for a specific developer role or workflow') but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like search_mcp_servers or list_mcp_categories. It lacks exclusions or guidance on when not to use it. The role examples provide some clarity on applicable inputs.

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