Get MCP server and LimeSurvey capability info

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: the default makes zero RemoteControl calls, the probe calls list_surveys and get_site_settings, get_site_settings requires a superadmin service account and degrades to permission_level='standard', and server_time is derived from the HTTP Date header (null without the probe). It even clarifies password_source never exposes the path or content.

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 default (no-call) behavior is front-loaded before the probe option, which is the right ordering, and each clause conveys a distinct behavior rather than filler. It is dense and somewhat run-on, but the information density is high and little could be cut without losing behavioral detail.

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?

For a zero-required-param introspection tool with an output schema present, the description is thorough: it covers defaults, the opt-in probe, auth requirements, degradation behavior, time-source caveats, and the 'never the path or content' secrecy guarantee. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret the results.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully expands on probe_instance: it explains the two RemoteControl calls it triggers, the superadmin dependency, the degradation path, and that it populates server_time/server_time_source. That is real semantic value beyond the schema's one-line description.

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 states a specific verb+resource: report server-side configuration without a RemoteControl call by default, and it enumerates exactly which fields are returned (server_version, instance_host, password_source, transport, read_only, write_scope, etc.). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling getters like get_site_settings or get_language_properties because it describes an MCP-server/capability introspection surface rather than a LimeSurvey data read.

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?

It gives an explicit call condition: 'Call this before relying on file export/import or theming tools,' and explains that probe_instance=true is needed to prove connectivity/auth. It does not name alternative tools (e.g., get_site_settings, get_available_site_settings) or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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