lsp-mcp-server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds context about checking 'running' servers, which implies it may not work if servers are stopped, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or response format. With annotations covering key aspects, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value without contradictions.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get status of running language servers') with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and earns its place by clearly stating the action and target.

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 (1 optional parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and implies scope ('running servers'), but could benefit from slight elaboration on output or error cases. However, with annotations handling safety and idempotency, it is sufficient for effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'server_id' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema handles all parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('Get status') and target resource ('running language servers'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform language server operations like completions, diagnostics, or server control (start/stop). It precisely communicates what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 for checking server status, which is clear in context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to check status vs. using other LSP tools). It provides basic guidance but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, keeping it at a 4.

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