Get MCP server details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes what data is returned (install packages, env vars, endpoints) but does not state that the operation is read-only, mention error handling (e.g., if server not found), or specify any authentication or rate limits. The behavior is implied as a safe fetch, but lacks explicit transparency.

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 front-loads the verb and resource, and includes all key details (name format, included items). No unnecessary words.

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 a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (install packages, env vars, endpoints). It is complete for its purpose, though it could mention error cases or return format.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an example for the name parameter and confirms the version default, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 'Fetch full details' and the resource 'one MCP server from the official registry', listing included data (install packages, env vars, endpoints) and providing an example name format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_recent_servers and search_registry.

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?

Usage guidance is implied but not explicit. The description indicates when to use this tool (by reverse-DNS name), but does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives like using search_registry for discovery or list_recent_servers for a list. Sibling tools are present but not referenced.

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