Code MCP Server

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 states the tool generates a sample config file but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, or handles errors. For a tool that likely writes files, this is a significant gap in 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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, output format, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for a configuration generation tool in a complex environment.

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 input schema has one parameter with 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents 'saveToFile' well. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond the schema, but with zero parameters mentioned and high schema coverage, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate.

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 action ('Generate') and the resource ('a sample .vscode-mcp.toml configuration file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'load_project_config' or 'save_project_config', which might handle similar configuration files, so it misses the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a workspace or specific context, or compare it to sibling tools like 'create_project' or 'smart_workspace_init' that might involve configuration. This lack of context leaves usage unclear.

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