mcp_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verbs '扫描' (scan) and '返回' (return) clearly imply a read-only diagnostic operation with no side effects. It does not mention failure modes or permissions, but for a simple scan tool this is adequate.

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 concise sentences: the first states the action and result, the second explains the purpose and target invariant. Every word adds value, no filler.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is sufficient: it explains what is scanned, what is returned, and why. The only slight gap is that 'server collection' is not precisely defined, but this is minor for such a simple tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to explain about parameters, and the schema fully covers the (empty) parameter set.

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 scans mcp.json across all workspaces and returns the server collection plus missing servers per workspace. It uses a specific verb ('扫描') and resource ('所有工作区的 mcp.json'), and the goal of config consistency distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'sync'.

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 gives clear context: it is used to keep MCP configuration consistent across workspaces and explains the expected invariant ('each server either exists everywhere or only where needed'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios, so it stops short of a 5.

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