submit_mcp_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that submissions are sent for 'indexing and review,' that enrichment fields are optional, and importantly that 'unrecognized enum values are simply dropped, not rejected.' It does not mention duplicate handling, verification flow, or side effects, but the provided details are meaningful and non-obvious.

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 three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states purpose, the second explains enrichment strategy with concrete source examples, and the third provides the safety policy for uncertain values. Every sentence earns 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 a 16-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a strong conceptual model of the submission action and the tolerance for incomplete or unrecognized data. It does not describe the post-submission response, but the combination of schema descriptions and the confidence-policy guidance makes the tool adequately usable.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining that all enrichment fields are optional and that unrecognized enum values are dropped rather than causing errors. This directly affects how the agent should populate enum parameters like category and authType.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Programmatically submit a new MCP server repository to AllMCPs.com for indexing and review.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_mcp_servers or verify_mcp_claim, which involve searching or verification rather than submission.

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 gives clear context for how to use the tool: fill in enrichment fields only when confidently determined from the repository, and omit uncertain values. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the enrichment guidance is actionable and practical.

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