Debug MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it explains that the port is 'dynamically assigned by the system to avoid conflicts,' which is crucial operational context not inferable from the schema alone. However, it lacks details on response format or error conditions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by behavioral context and usage guidance in just two sentences, with zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information.

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 output schema), the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, behavioral traits, and usage context effectively. A minor gap is the lack of output details, but this is acceptable without an output schema.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is high. The description adds value by explaining why parameters are unnecessary (port is dynamically assigned) and the tool's purpose, compensating for the lack of parameter documentation needs.

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 ('current HTTP server port and URL information'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on port/URL retrieval rather than debugging 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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('to get the actual port number and endpoints for sending debug logs'), providing clear context for its application in debugging workflows, which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_server_info or list_debug_blocks.

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