Whatbox MCP Server Information

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds a valuable behavioral guarantee by specifying 'non-sensitive metadata'. This clarifies the scope of data returned, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the core purpose ('Return...'). It is concise, with no filler or redundant information, and effectively uses every word.

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?

This is a very simple zero-parameter tool, and the description covers the essential purpose and scope. The rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and the presence of an output schema fill in the remaining context, making the description complete for selection and invocation.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is vacuously 100%. With no parameters to explain or clarify, the baseline of 4 is appropriate, and the description correctly avoids adding meaningless parameter information.

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's action ('Return') and resource ('metadata about this local Whatbox MCP server'), making its purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools such as whatbox_configuration_status or list_capabilities, which could also be used to gather information about the server.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling status/info tools. The description simply states what it does without mentioning alternatives, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer when it is appropriate.

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