Read MCP config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Read' and 'from disk' convey a non-mutating read operation, which is useful, but the description does not state what is returned (raw contents vs parsed config) or any error behavior. It is minimally transparent for a simple read 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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and includes the key constraint without any padding. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read tool, the description covers the core function, but because there is no output schema, the return value is not described. The agent is left to infer whether the tool returns raw file text, parsed JSON, or a status object. This is a notable gap for a complete description.

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 zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% vacuously. Per the baseline for no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter detail.

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 ('Read') with a clear resource ('Claude Desktop's MCP config') and source ('from disk'). It also adds a usage context ('UI use only') and is readily distinguishable from siblings like write-mcp-config and open-mcp-config-manager.

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 phrase 'UI use only' provides an explicit usage constraint, telling the agent this tool is intended for UI contexts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the read vs. write split is implied strongly enough for a tool this simple.

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