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. 'Start a development server' implies a long-running process creation, but doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, how the server is managed (e.g., background process, PID tracking), what happens if a server is already running, or error handling. Significant behavioral gaps exist for a process-starting 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema coverage and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool that starts development servers (a potentially complex operation with process management implications), the description is inadequate. No annotations exist to cover safety or behavior, no output schema describes what's returned (e.g., process ID, success status), and the description lacks crucial context about how the server runs and interacts with the system.

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 4 parameters (command, port, name, cwd) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but minimal value addition.

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 'Start a development server' clearly states the action (start) and target (development server), but it's vague about what type of development server and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'run_command' or 'docker_run' which might also start servers. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_command', 'docker_run', or 'docker_compose'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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