mcp-registry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's minimal in behavioral context beyond the basic 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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete for its purpose. It covers the core functionality, though it could benefit from more context on usage relative to siblings. The output schema reduces the need for detailed return value explanations in 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (name and registry_url). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or usage notes. According to scoring rules, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high (>80%) and no param info is added in the description.

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 the action ('Get') and resource ('available versions for a specific MCP server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (get_mcp_server, list_mcp_servers, search_mcp_servers) which also retrieve server information, missing an opportunity for clearer distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. While it mentions 'specific MCP server,' it doesn't clarify scenarios where retrieving versions is preferred over getting server details (get_mcp_server) or listing/searching servers. No alternative tools or exclusions are mentioned.

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