Terraform Registry MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions searching for errors and troubleshooting, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical details like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the 'matched sections' take. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 usage examples and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does a decent job covering purpose, usage, and parameters, but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., authentication, rate limits) and the structure of the returned dictionary. For a search tool with 4 parameters and rich sibling context, it's adequate but has clear gaps in transparency.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all four parameters (namespace, name, query, version) with examples (e.g., 'hashicorp', 'aws') and clarifies that version defaults to 'latest'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain parameter constraints or relationships in depth.

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 tool searches within provider documentation for errors, topics, or troubleshooting info, using a specific verb ('search') and resource ('provider documentation'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_provider_docs' (which presumably retrieves full docs) by focusing on search functionality, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'search_modules' or 'search_providers'.

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 explicit usage examples in a 'Useful for questions like' section, covering specific scenarios such as error interpretation, configuration, and troubleshooting. This gives clear context for when to use this tool, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings.

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