MCP server info

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

Annotations already establish the safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world nature of the call. The description adds genuine value beyond that by naming the payload (name, version, runtime details) and the diagnostic signal (whether the OPA, Regal, and Conftest binaries are reachable), which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two sentences, no repetition, and the primary output (name, version, runtime details) is front-loaded before the usage condition. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the right thing by enumerating the returned fields and the diagnostic meaning of the call. For a parameterless info tool this is nearly complete; only the absence of a tiebreaker against opa_status/opa_health keeps it short of full marks.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema carries nothing an agent needs explained. No parameter-level commentary is required and none is missing, making the baseline of 4 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?

States a specific verb (return) and resource (this opa-mcp server's name, version, runtime details), plus a follow-on diagnostic role (binary reachability). It is clear about what it does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as opa_status or opa_health, which an agent may plausibly confuse it with.

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?

Gives two concrete conditions for use: confirming which opa-mcp version is running, and verifying that the OPA, Regal, and Conftest binaries are reachable. No exclusions or alternative-routing guidance are offered, and the binary-reachability use case overlaps with the sibling health/status tools, which is left unaddressed.

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