mcp_registry_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only (summary, no mutation), free, and captured daily at a fixed time. It does not mention idempotency or caching behavior, but the snapshot nature implies it.

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 a single, dense paragraph covering all key aspects: what it returns, capture time, use cases, and access. It is concise without being verbose, though a bullet list could improve readability.

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 simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, output details, and typical use cases. It could be enhanced by mentioning that results remain static until the next daily capture.

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 input schema has zero parameters, making parameter description unnecessary. The description explains the tool's function without needing parameters, meeting the baseline for 0-param tools.

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 returns a daily summary of the MCP registry, specifying exact outputs: total servers, by-status breakdown, top namespaces, and 1-day deltas. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool mcp_registry_series by emphasizing 'snapshot' and daily capture.

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 explicitly states when to use it: for understanding ecosystem growth or detecting deprecated servers. It adds practical context with 'Free, no auth.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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