mcp_template_list

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 states the tool returns a JSON array, which is read-like behavior. However, it does not explicitly confirm it is read-only or mention side effects, permissions, or limits. The behavior is simple enough that a 3 is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes the return type. Every sentence is necessary and efficient.

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 no parameters, an output schema, and a simple listing purpose, the description is complete. It explains what is returned and is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's functionality.

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 tool has no parameters, so baseline per rules is 4. The description does not need to add parameter detail, but it does clarify the output format, which is helpful.

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: 'List available MCP server templates.' The verb 'List' and resource 'available MCP server templates' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like mcp_audit, mcp_publish, etc., which have different actions.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied (when you need to see templates), but there are no conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings provided.

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