Code MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'security restrictions (only allowed commands)' which hints at a whitelist mechanism, but doesn't explain what happens if a disallowed command is attempted, how to check allowed commands (sibling 'get_allowed_commands' exists), error behavior, or output format. For a potentially dangerous command execution tool, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise at just 8 words in a single sentence. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and constraint. Every word earns its place with zero wasted verbiage.

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 command execution tool with security implications and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the security model, error handling, output format, or relationship to sibling tools like 'get_allowed_commands' and 'run_command'. The agent lacks critical context to use this tool safely and effectively.

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 all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 tool's purpose: 'Execute a command with security restrictions (only allowed commands)'. It specifies the verb ('execute') and resource ('command') with the key constraint of security restrictions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'run_command' which likely lacks these restrictions, preventing a perfect 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 the sibling 'run_command' (which appears to be the unrestricted version) or other command-execution tools like 'run_python' or 'npm_command'. There's no context about prerequisites, security requirements, or appropriate scenarios.

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