lsp-mcp-server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the tool stops a 'running' server, implying it only works on active instances. Annotations provide idempotentHint=true (safe to retry) and readOnlyHint=false (mutating), but the description clarifies the precondition and scope of the operation.

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, focused sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and basic behavior. However, it could benefit from mentioning potential side effects (e.g., stopping server terminates ongoing operations) or error conditions, though annotations help with idempotency context.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without enhancing parameter understanding.

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 ('Stop') and target ('a running language server'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which perform various LSP operations but not server lifecycle management. It precisely communicates the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 context (when a server is running), but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like lsp_server_status for checking status or lsp_start_server for starting. It provides clear operational intent but lacks explicit comparison with sibling tools.

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