MCP Installer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Install' implies a system modification, the description doesn't address critical aspects like required permissions, potential side effects, whether installation is reversible, or any rate limits/constraints. It mentions execution methods (npx/uvx) but lacks operational context.

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 extremely concise at just 7 words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted language. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, target, and execution methods without unnecessary elaboration.

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 an installation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what happens after installation, potential errors, system requirements, or the relationship to the sibling tool. The agent lacks critical context needed to properly understand and use this 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured fields, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing extra value. The schema adequately covers parameter purposes and formats.

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 action ('Install') and target ('an MCP server via npx or uvx'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'install_local_mcp_server', leaving some ambiguity about when to use each installation method.

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 about when to use this tool versus its sibling 'install_local_mcp_server', nor does it mention any prerequisites, constraints, or alternative approaches. The agent receives no contextual direction about appropriate usage scenarios.

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