explain_toolRetrieve details on a registry entry: purpose, fit, permissions, risks, setup, and config to add.
Details for one registry entry: what it does, why it fits (or not), permissions, risks, setup, and the exact config it would add.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| host | No | Which client to recommend for. Defaults to the clients found on this machine. | |
| path | No | Project directory. Defaults to the server working directory. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the content the agent will receive (permissions, risks, setup, exact config), though it says nothing about output format or size.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the scope ('Details for one registry entry') then lists the payload. Dense but every clause carries distinct information; slightly list-heavy but not wasteful.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description correctly carries the burden of describing return contents, and it does so thoroughly. The remaining gap is the ambiguous required 'id' argument, which the description could have clarified.
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 67%: host and path are documented in the schema, but the required 'id' parameter has no description anywhere, and the description never clarifies its format or whether it is a name or an entry identifier. With moderate coverage and no compensating param detail, this is baseline-level.
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 the resource ('one registry entry') and enumerates exactly what the response covers (fit, permissions, risks, setup, config), which is more specific than the bare name. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from recommend_tools, whose 'why it fits' territory overlaps, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The phrase 'one registry entry' weakly implies a single-id lookup versus the search/recommend siblings, but an agent must infer that from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.