mcp_servers_add

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only states the action without indicating whether existing configurations are overwritten, whether the server is started, or how scope affects persistence. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation 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?

The description is a single sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose with no filler. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

With 7 parameters, a nested env object, and no annotations or output schema, this tool has moderate complexity. The one-line description does not explain the tool's return value, the meaning of 'runtime' for configuration persistence, or how scope and auto_start interact. It is far from complete for safe and correct usage.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, but the schema already handles documentation adequately.

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 verb ('Add'), the resource ('MCP server configuration'), and the context ('at runtime'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like mcp_servers_list, mcp_servers_start, and mcp_servers_remove, which perform different operations on server configurations.

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 'at runtime' implies that this tool is for dynamically adding configurations, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or suggest sibling tools for related operations such as removing or starting servers.

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