get_server_versions

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the action ('Get all available versions') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what constitutes 'all available versions.' The description is too minimal.

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, concise sentence (9 words) that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary information. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and parameters are fully documented in the schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not clarify or elaborate on what 'name' or 'registry_url' entail.

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 'Get all available versions for a specific MCP server,' using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like get_mcp_server (likely gets server details) and list_mcp_servers (lists servers).

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 implies usage (for getting versions of a named server) but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_mcp_server. No exclusions or context about prerequisites are provided.

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