Terraform Registry MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that documentation is fetched from GitHub and includes specific content types (e.g., 'Example usage code'), which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with external dependencies.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by bullet points detailing fetched content and a clear parameter/return section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, external data source), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return format. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases or performance, which could enhance completeness for a tool interacting with GitHub.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose with examples (e.g., 'namespace: Provider namespace (e.g., 'hashicorp')'), clarifies the default for 'version', and ties them to the tool's function, fully compensating for the schema's lack of 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 detailed documentation') and target resource ('for a specific provider data source'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_provider_docs' or 'get_provider_resource_docs' by focusing on data sources rather than providers or resources. It provides concrete examples (e.g., 'aws_ami') to illustrate scope.

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 when detailed documentation is needed for a data source, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'search_provider_docs' or 'get_provider_docs'. It mentions fetching from GitHub, which provides some context, but lacks explicit guidance on use cases or exclusions.

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