MetaMCP Admin MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It indicates returned data includes servers (useful behavioral context), but fails to mention read-only safety, idempotency, or error behavior (e.g., what happens if UUID is invalid). No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentence of seven words with zero waste. The phrase 'including its servers' efficiently conveys重要 behavioral detail without verbosity.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description adequately conveys the core return value (namespace details with servers) but leaves gaps regarding error handling, the significance of the optional instance parameter, and permission requirements.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters fully described (UUID and instance name). The description adds no explicit parameter guidance, meeting the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas where the schema carries the semantic load.

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?

Provides specific verb (Get) + resource (namespace) and clarifies scope by mentioning included servers. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling get_namespace_tools or clarify the UUID-based lookup vs list_namespaces.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this versus list_namespaces (for discovery) versus get_namespace_tools. No mention of the optional 'instance' parameter's role in multi-instance deployments.

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