Debug MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. However, it adds context about verifying server status, which is useful but not comprehensive for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's function and recommended usage without any wasted words, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand its role.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is complete enough for a diagnostic tool. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, though it could benefit from more behavioral details like response format, but this is mitigated by the simple nature of the 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 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the tool's purpose and usage context, which compensates for the lack of parameters, making it clear that no inputs are required for this diagnostic check.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Get') and resources ('debug MCP server configuration, HTTP endpoints, and supported environments'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'analyze_bug' or 'clear_debug_logs' by focusing on server-level diagnostic information rather than bug analysis or log management.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this first to verify the server is running correctly'), suggesting it as an initial diagnostic step, which helps differentiate it from alternatives like 'detect_environment' or 'get_server_port' that might serve more specific purposes.

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