MetaMCP Admin MCP

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 does not indicate whether the operation is read-only (implied by 'Get' but not guaranteed), what happens if the UUID is not found (error vs null), or what details are returned in the absence of an output schema.

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, efficient sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, delivering maximum information in minimum space.

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 simple lookup tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally viable. However, given the absence of annotations and output schema, it lacks information about error conditions or the structure of returned details that would make it complete.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'by UUID' which reinforces the required parameter's purpose, but adds no additional semantic context (e.g., UUID format, where to obtain it) beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('details of a specific MCP server') and lookup method ('by UUID'). The term 'specific' and the UUID parameter implicitly distinguish it from sibling list_servers, though it doesn't explicitly contrast the two tools.

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 mentions the lookup mechanism (by UUID) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_servers or what to do if the UUID is unknown. No alternatives or prerequisites are stated.

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