mongo_server_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys a read-only operation ('Get') and specifies the data categories, but does not disclose details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. The transparency is adequate for a simple status check.

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 front-loads the action and lists key categories. Every word is informative, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It lists the types of information returned, though it could explicitly mention that the output is a document with those fields. Given the low complexity, this is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and the schema description adequately explains connectionId. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get MongoDB server status' with a specific verb and resource, and lists key categories (connections, memory, uptime, operations). It distinguishes itself from siblings like mongo_db_stats (database-level) and db_status (generic).

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 server-level monitoring but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like db_status, mongo_db_stats, or other monitoring tools. No usage exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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