get_install_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It communicates a read-only 'Get' action and discloses the return payload (command and listing URL), but it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error behavior. This is adequate for a simple lookup but leaves some behavioral unknowns.

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 two concise sentences. The first states exactly what the tool does, and the second specifies the returned items. There is no redundant phrasing or 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input (slug) and the output (command and listing URL). It does not explain what a MCPVault slug is or handle edge cases, but those are minor gaps given the simplicity of the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes slug as 'MCPVault slug for the server.' The description only repeats this concept ('by its MCPVault slug') without adding examples, format, or edge-case guidance, so it adds no real value beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the install command for a specific MCP server by its MCPVault slug.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_mcp_servers or submit_mcp_server, and the return content ('command... plus the listing URL') is explicitly stated.

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 establishes a clear usage context: when you have a specific MCPVault slug and need the install command. While it doesn't name alternatives or state when not to use it, the purpose is narrow enough that an agent can infer when to call it versus searching or submitting servers.

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