discover_servers

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the action (scanning local config files, listing servers) and implies it is a read-only, non-destructive operation. Could explicitly state no side effects or permissions required, but current text adequately conveys the behavior.

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?

Two sentences with no waste: first sentence declares action and scope, second sentence provides usage guidance and alternative. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool's simplicity, the description covers purpose and usage fully. No output schema, but the tool's output (list of servers) is implied. Could benefit from mentioning the output format or what each entry contains, but still sufficient for a discovery 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% for the single parameter (check_registry). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's own description, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool scans local config files to list already installed MCP servers, specifying the exact apps (Claude Desktop, Cursor, Windsurf, VS Code). It differentiates from sibling check_package by explicitly contrasting use cases.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('when user wants to review/list existing servers') and when-not-to-use ('install, evaluate, or look up a specific package'), with a direct alternative ('use check_package instead').

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