scan_mcp_server

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description confirms 'Read-only; no network required when tools is supplied directly.' It adds return format details. No contradictions; the description complements annotations well.

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 four sentences, each adding value: core purpose, usage workflow, behavioral notes, return format. No redundancy; front-loaded with the main action.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, 1 required) and robust annotations, the description covers purpose, workflow, behavior, and returns. It could mention error handling or edge cases, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema; it mentions the required 'tools' parameter implicitly but does not elaborate on optional parameters' semantic purpose beyond what's in the schema.

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 purpose: 'Fingerprint an MCP server's tool surface into an unsigned ssx360.mcp-manifest.v1.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like sign_mcp_manifest and verify_mcp_manifest by explaining the workflow (use before/after).

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: 'Use before sign_mcp_manifest' and 'Re-scan later and pass results to verify_mcp_manifest with a baseline.' It also provides context about network requirements and read-only nature, helping the agent decide when to invoke.

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