MetaMCP Admin MCP

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 only states 'Create' without disclosing mutation semantics: conflict behavior (e.g., if name exists), idempotency, async/sync nature, or what gets returned upon success.

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?

Single efficient sentence with no wasted words. The information is front-loaded and the sentence earns its place by establishing the core operation, though it is minimally sufficient.

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 complex creation tool with 10 parameters, nested objects (env, headers), conditional required fields, and no output schema or annotations, a 9-word description is inadequate. It fails to explain return values, side effects, or success/failure behaviors.

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%, with all 10 parameters documented in the schema (including conditional requirements like 'command' for STDIO). The description adds no parameter guidance beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 clear verb ('Create') and resource ('MCP server'), with scope ('on a MetaMCP instance'). However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tool 'clone_server', which also creates servers but from an existing template.

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?

Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'clone_server', nor does it mention prerequisites such as required permissions or instance availability.

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