discover_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'real MCP endpoint,' indicating a network call, but does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, failure modes, or response format. It lacks critical behavioral context like timeouts or authentication needs.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys both the action and the result. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundant phrases.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and param meaning adequately. It even mentions the output scope (tools/resources/prompts). It lacks usage guidelines and failure caveats, but these are less critical for such a simple discovery tool.

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 schema has a single serverId string with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by identifying serverId as the registered server to connect to, but it does not explain how to obtain it or any format constraints. It adds basic context but not full semantic detail.

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 action: connect to a server's real MCP endpoint and list its tools/resources/prompts. It distinguishes itself from siblings like register_server (which registers servers) and classify_tools (which categorizes tools) by focusing on live endpoint discovery.

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 implies usage (only for registered servers) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. No mention of which other tools are preferred for local vs real endpoint capabilities.

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