mcp_scaffold

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., file generation), idempotency, required permissions, or that the target directory must be empty (a constraint present in the schema). The output schema exists but is not referenced. The description is too minimal to inform the agent of 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 extremely concise at eight words. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. However, it may be overly terse, sacrificing completeness for brevity. Slightly more detail would not harm conciseness.

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 tool with five parameters and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'scaffold' entails (e.g., generating a project structure), what the required 'spec' is (name and description serve as spec?), or how the template parameter affects behavior. The output schema exists but is ignored. The description leaves significant context for the agent to infer.

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%, so each parameter is described in the schema. The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond what is in the schema. It neither repeats nor enhances parameter understanding, which is acceptable given high coverage, but it misses an opportunity to explain parameter relationships (e.g., how template affects scaffolded output).

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 'Scaffold a new MCP server from a spec' uses a specific verb 'scaffold' and clearly identifies the resource (new MCP server) and the source (a spec). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like audit, publish, or validate, which are different operations. The purpose is evident and 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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist (e.g., a spec file), or how it compares to alternatives like mcp_validate or mcp_template_list. An agent would not know when to choose this over sibling tools.

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