Code MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool executes something, implying it may have side effects, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what permissions are needed, whether it's safe to run, what happens on failure, or what the output looks like. For a tool that executes arbitrary custom code, this is a significant gap.

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 with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information about what the tool does.

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 this is a tool that executes arbitrary custom code with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what custom tools are, how they're defined, what security implications exist, or what to expect from execution. For a potentially powerful and dangerous tool, this leaves too many questions unanswered.

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 schema already documents both parameters well. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't explain what custom tools are available, how to discover them, or provide examples of typical arguments.

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 ('Execute') and resource ('a custom tool defined in project configuration'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'run_command' or 'run_python' which also execute things, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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. There are many sibling tools for executing commands, scripts, or code, but no indication of when this custom tool execution is preferred over those other options.

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