Grade an MCP server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes the outputs (grade, per-category scores, finding counts, prioritized list) but does not mention potential side effects such as executing local commands or making network calls when grading.

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 structured into four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds distinct information: grading scope, graded properties, return format, and usage scenarios. It is dense but avoids redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, what is measured, return format, and when to use it, compensating for the lack of an output schema. Minor gaps like execution side effects exist, but overall it is a well-rounded description for a two-parameter evaluation tool.

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% with detailed explanations of both target and max_findings. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Scores an MCP server on agent usability (A–F)' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on grading a server rather than explaining or listing rules.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this before depending on a third-party server, or after changing your own catalog.' It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the primary use case is clearly stated.

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