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 but fails to explain what 'enable' or 'disable' actually entails (e.g., whether disabled tools reject invocations, whether changes are immediate, reversibility, or side effects on running operations). It only restates the operation type implied by the tool name.

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 nine words with no redundancy or filler. The structure is front-loaded with the action ('Enable or disable') followed by the target resource. Every word earns its place despite the brevity.

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 an administrative state-management tool with 5 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the toggle's operational impact, the ACTIVE/INACTIVE state semantics, or provide context for the optional 'instance' parameter despite the 100% schema coverage.

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 'tool' and 'namespace' which loosely map to toolUuid and namespaceUuid parameters, but adds no semantic clarification beyond the schema (e.g., no explanation of serverUuid's relationship to the tool hierarchy or the optional instance parameter).

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 clear action verbs ('Enable or disable') and identifies the specific resource ('a specific tool within a namespace'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'toggle_server_in_namespace' or clarify when an agent should toggle a specific tool versus an entire server.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites for invocation (e.g., requiring the tool to exist), or the relationship to the similar 'toggle_server_in_namespace' sibling. The description offers no selection criteria.

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