iyke_mcp_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses the return structure (name×source pair, source tier, provider, lifecycle, live state, source file path) and parameter behavior. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for a read-only list operation, the disclosure is sufficient.

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 fairly concise while packing in essential details about return fields and usage. It starts with the core action and then lists specifics. A small reduction could be made, but overall it is well-structured and efficient.

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 output schema, the description provides a comprehensive explanation of the return format, covering all key fields. The tool has only one optional parameter, and the description fully explains its use. The behavior is completely described for a list operation.

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%, but the description adds clear meaning for the single parameter project_id, stating it is optional and defaults to the active project. This fully explains the parameter's role.

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 lists MCP servers visible from a project, specifying the exact resource and verb. It distinguishes itself by noting that it returns pairs to surface conflicts across tiers, which adds specificity beyond a simple list.

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 explains the default behavior (active project) and how to query a specific project via project_id. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, though the unique purpose (listing MCP servers) is clear among many siblings.

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