MCPAmpel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses scan intensity ('16 engines') and output type ('trust scores'), but omits critical behavioral traits: safety profile (read-only vs. destructive), execution duration expectations, side effects (does it modify configs?), or authentication requirements. Adequate but has clear gaps for a security scanning operation.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence covers the full operation (discovery + scanning with 16 engines), second covers return values. Front-loaded with the most important information (what it does and where it looks). 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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately compensates by mentioning the return value ('trust scores'). For a scanning tool, it covers the essential invocation context. Could be improved by describing the output structure or format since no output schema exists, but sufficient for correct tool selection.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters. As per scoring rules, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately requires no parameter explanation.

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?

Description uses specific verbs ('Discover', 'scan') and clearly identifies the resource ('MCP servers installed in your editor/agent config'). Lists specific editors (Claude Code, Cursor, Windsurf, Gemini CLI) to scope the operation. Explicitly states the return value ('trust scores'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling 'scan_url' (which targets URLs) and 'get_scan_results' (which retrieves existing 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?

Provides clear contextual boundaries ('installed in your editor/agent config') that implicitly define when to use this versus 'scan_url'. However, lacks explicit 'when-not' guidance or named alternatives (e.g., doesn't state 'use scan_url for remote servers instead'). The specific editor list strongly implies the local/config use case.

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