Terraform Registry MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type ('Dictionary containing all available versions') but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'list').

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 with clear sections for Args and Returns, and each sentence serves a purpose. It could be slightly more concise by combining the first sentence with the parameter explanations, but overall it's efficiently organized without wasted words.

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 that there's an output schema (though not shown here), the description doesn't need to fully explain return values. However, for a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide more behavioral context about how the tool works, error handling, and usage patterns relative to sibling tools.

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 explicitly documents all three parameters (namespace, name, provider) with brief explanations, which is valuable since schema description coverage is 0%. While the explanations are minimal ('Module namespace/publisher', 'Module name', 'Provider name'), they provide essential semantic context beyond the bare parameter names in the schema.

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 action ('List all available versions') and resource ('of a Terraform module'), which provides specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_latest_module_version' or 'list_provider_versions', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like 'get_latest_module_version' and 'search_modules' available, there's no indication of when this specific listing function is preferred over other related operations.

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