list_services

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses what information is surfaced (which services exist, which are configured, which named instances/credentials exist per service). It implies a safe read but never explicitly says the call is read-only or cheap, so one point is left on the table.

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 information-dense sentence followed by a one-line call to action. The purpose is front-loaded and every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant with the name or title.

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 or annotations exist, yet the description tells the agent exactly what the response conveys: required services, configuration state, and per-service instances. For a zero-parameter discovery tool this is complete enough to call confidently.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline 4 case. There are no parameter semantics to disambiguate, and the description does not need to add any.

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 specific verb (List) and resource (all admin services this MCP can reach), then enumerates the concrete backends (Uptime Kuma, NPMPlus, Porkbun, Cloudflare, Docker, Proxmox) and the per-service detail returned (configured status, named instances). This is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling read/execute tools.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to reach for it: 'Call this first if you're unsure what's available.' That is a clear entry-point condition, but it does not name an alternative tool or state when this tool is NOT the right choice.

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