Check every server in a config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by disclosing that it delegates to check_server and is limited to npm-launched servers, but that npm-only scope sits in tension with the source enum offering 'github', and no cost/latency or partial-failure behavior is described for a fan-out operation.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, with the example file name appended as low-cost clarification. No filler or 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the delegated check_server behavior is stated. What is missing is what happens for non-npm entries or when only part of the config fails, which matters for a fan-out scan.

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 path and source are already documented with an enum for source, giving a baseline of 3. The description contributes nothing about parameter meaning beyond what the schema states.

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 names a concrete action (run check_server) and its scope (every npm-launched MCP server in a config file, e.g. mcp.json), which an agent can distinguish from check_server's single-target behavior. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling audit_config, which appears to operate on the same config-file resource.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the batch counterpart to check_server, so the agent can infer when to pick it. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when audit_config would be preferable, leaving a real ambiguity between config-level siblings.

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