get_mcp_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly communicates that this is a read-only retrieval operation and discloses the fields returned. It does not mention error behavior or auth requirements, but for a simple lookup tool this is a minor gap rather than a serious omission.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then efficiently lists the returned fields. Every element adds value and there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 simple one-parameter retrieval tool, the description is adequately complete: it names the input and the expected result fields. It does not specify behavior for a nonexistent slug, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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 input schema already documents the slug parameter thoroughly with examples and a listing URL. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('a specific MCP server'), and the key identifier ('MCPVault slug'). It also enumerates the returned details, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search_mcp_servers, get_install_command, and submit_mcp_server.

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?

'By its MCPVault slug' gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you already know the slug and need full details. It does not explicitly say to use search_mcp_servers when the slug is unknown, so the when-not/alternative guidance is left implicit.

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