registry_get_server_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the purpose ('Get detailed information') without revealing response format, error behavior (e.g., what if serverId is not found), or any side effects. This is minimal beyond the basic action.

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 is concise and structured clearly, though it is somewhat under-specified. The efficiency is good, but it could have benefited from additional context without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), yet the description still feels incomplete. It does not explain what 'detailed information' includes, whether the result is a single object, or how to handle nonexistent server IDs. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, more context is needed for an agent to use it correctly.

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 has 100% coverage: serverId is described as 'Server ID or name'. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, but the schema already documents it adequately. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description does not compensate or add extra context.

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 tool's purpose: to get detailed information for a specific MCP server. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific MCP server'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search (registry_search_servers) and list (registry_list_categories).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a known server ID) or when to prefer search_servers instead. The context from sibling names implies use after finding a server, but the description itself offers no such direction.

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