mcp_servers_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Get detailed information'. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if the server name is invalid, whether any side effects occur, or what 'detailed information' includes. This is a minimal disclosure that fails to convey the tool's behavioral traits.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It achieves the bare minimum for clarity, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. For a simple tool with one parameter, this is appropriately sized.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It does not explain what fields or format the 'detailed information' will be returned in, nor does it hint at error behavior or relationships to sibling list/start/stop tools. The description leaves significant gaps that are not filled by schema or annotations.

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%, as the single parameter 'name' has the description 'Server name'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies. No extra parameter nuances are explained.

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 ('Get') and specific resource ('detailed information about an MCP server'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mcp_servers_list (which lists servers) and start/stop (which control servers), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for a single, specific server as opposed to listing all servers, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. The description simply states what it does without contextual usage direction.

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