Check MCP server status

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 discloses the operation's mechanism (initialize handshake) and its purpose (determining which servers respond), which is useful. However, it is silent on timeout/error handling, failure reporting, return format, and whether the probe has any side effects, leaving meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the action, method, and outcome with no filler. The parenthetical 'UI use only' is an efficient usage restriction. Every word contributes.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, but the description gives a reasonable summary: what it checks and what it reveals ('which ones actually respond'). Yet it omits details a caller would need, such as the shape of the result, behavior on non-responding or hanging servers, and the exact semantics of the servers parameter. It is adequate for a simple status probe but not fully self-contained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only refers vaguely to 'configured MCP server' and does not explain the required key/command fields or the optional args/env properties within the servers array. The schema's property names are self-evident only to someone already familiar with MCP server configs, so the description fails to add the needed semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Probe') and resource ('each configured MCP server'), names the exact mechanism ('MCP initialize handshake'), and states the goal ('to see which ones actually respond'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read-mcp-config and write-mcp-config, which deal with config file operations rather than live probing.

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 explicitly marks the tool as 'UI use only', which is a clear when-not-to-use restriction for an agent. It also makes the intended scenario obvious (checking server liveness), though it does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives or give conditions for choosing one over the other.

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