MCP Installer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Install') but doesn't explain what installation entails—whether it modifies system files, requires permissions, has side effects, or what the expected outcome is. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 complexity of an installation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what 'Install' does operationally, potential errors, or system impacts, leaving gaps in understanding for safe and effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that 'path' points to locally cloned code, but this is redundant with the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Install') and resource ('an MCP server whose code is cloned locally on your computer'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'install_repo_mcp_server', which likely handles remote repositories rather than local clones.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling 'install_repo_mcp_server' or other alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing pre-cloned code, or exclusions for when not to use it.

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