MetaMCP Admin MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Enable or disable' indicates mutation, it lacks disclosure of side effects (e.g., connection termination, traffic routing impact), the semantic implications of the optional instance parameter, or what happens if the server is already in the target state.

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 front-loaded with the action verbs, zero redundancy or filler text. Every word earns its place in communicating the core operation.

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?

While the core action is clear and parameters are fully documented in the schema, the description remains minimal for a mutation operation. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, it should ideally explain the behavioral impact of the optional instance parameter and side effects of toggling server state.

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%, meaning the structured schema already documents all parameters (namespaceUuid, serverUuid, status, instance) and their types. The description adds no semantic details beyond the schema (e.g., explaining that instance targets a specific deployment or that status uses ACTIVE/INACTIVE values), earning the baseline score for complete schema coverage.

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 specific verbs 'Enable or disable' to describe the state change operation on the resource 'server', scoped 'within a namespace'. It effectively distinguishes from toggle_tool_in_namespace by specifying the target resource type (server vs tool).

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 alternatives like update_server, or prerequisites such as needing the server to exist or understanding when the optional instance parameter should be provided.

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