mcp_get_php_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a safe read, but nothing is said about required capabilities (does reading PHP config need elevated permissions?), whether the output is the raw phpinfo dump (potentially large and sensitive) or a filtered summary, or any rate/scope limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition of the name. It is efficient, though the brevity shades into under-specification rather than tight editing.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least indicate what 'configuration details' encompasses (e.g., full phpinfo output vs. selected directives) so the agent can anticipate result size and content. The single-site scoping and the list_sites pointer come from the schema, not the description.

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?

There is one required parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already documents 'site' as 'Site id (see list_sites)', including the pointer to the sibling that enumerates valid values. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters applies.

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 (Get) and resource (PHP configuration details), so the purpose is unambiguous. However, it does no work to distinguish itself from near-neighbors in the sibling list such as mcp_get_system_info, mcp_get_debug_info, or mcp_get_health, which an agent must disambiguate from by name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is a diagnostics/read tool and not, say, a preflight step for mcp_set_option or mcp_update_core.

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