submit_mcp_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It reveals that submission is 'for indexing and review,' implying a non-immediate or moderated process. However, it does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, idempotency, or what happens after submission (e.g., notification or status).

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 sentence, front-loaded with the key action and target. It contains no fluff or redundant information.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the agent can expect after submission. It does not mention a return value, confirmation ID, or next steps, leaving a gap for a tool with 6 parameters and a complex process.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, baseline 3 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?

The description clearly states the action ('submit'), the object ('a new MCP server repository'), and the destination ('AllMCPs.com for indexing and review'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_mcp_servers or boost_mcp_server.

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 the tool is used when you have a new MCP server to submit, but it does not explicitly explain when to use this versus alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of whether it can also be used for updates or how it relates to verification/boost tools.

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