Gemini Mcp List

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'List' implies a safe read, but the description says nothing about auth requirements, failure modes, or what timeout_s does. It only hints at scope semantics.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the scope constraint. No filler; every clause adds information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, with 0% parameter coverage the description leaves timeout_s unexplained and gives no operational context (prerequisites, failure behavior) for a tool an agent may invoke across many MCP workflows.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully constrains the scope parameter to user|project (an enum-like value the bare string schema does not convey), but timeout_s is entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'List MCP servers configured in gemini CLI', plus the underlying CLI command. The 'list' verb clearly distinguishes it from sibling write tools like gemini_mcp_add and gemini_mcp_remove, though those siblings are never named.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the agent must infer that this is the read counterpart to gemini_mcp_add/remove. No prerequisites (e.g., gemini CLI installed/authenticated) are stated.

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