submit_mcp_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Submit... as a new MCP server listing' implies a mutation, but it does not state any side effects, prerequisites like authentication, whether this opens a PR or directly modifies the directory, whether a duplicate is rejected, or what the response will be. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the usage guidance is appended efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, so the description covers purpose and usage adequately. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without knowing what happens after submission or what the return value means. This incomplete behavioral context lowers the score.

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% because the single parameter has a full description with an example. The tool description only repeats 'GitHub repository' and adds no meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Submit') and names the exact resource ('GitHub repository to the MCPVault directory as a new MCP server listing'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling read/search tools because it is the only one that creates a listing.

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?

'Use this when you find an MCP server on GitHub that is not yet in MCPVault' provides an explicit condition for use. The 'not yet in MCPVault' phrase implies the negative case, but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools such as search_mcp_servers or get_mcp_server for checking existence.

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