Show configured integrations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing that the output includes detected problems (outdated servers, secrets in config files), which an agent would not infer from the schema or annotations. Auth and pagination details are absent but not critical for a local read.

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 dense sentence with the resource list front-loaded; every clause earns its place. It is efficient, though the trailing 'plus problems...' clause slightly obscures the primary output.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so adequately (servers, plugins, skills, and detected problems). For a two-optional-parameter read-only inspection tool, this is nearly complete; only the report's structure and default host resolution are left implicit.

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 100% and both parameters (host, path) are documented with defaults and an enum in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is 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?

The description names a specific verb (List) and concrete resources (MCP servers, plugins, skills configured for Claude Code and Codex), and adds that it reports problems like outdated servers or leaked secrets. It is clearly distinguishable from action-oriented siblings (plan_install, recommend_tools), though it never names them explicitly.

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 framing as a diagnostic ('plus problems') implies you call it to inspect current state before acting, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the sibling tools that act on the results, and no stated prerequisites.

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