MetaMCP Admin MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to specify whether this is a partial update (PATCH) or full replacement, what happens to omitted fields, or whether the operation is atomic/reversible.

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?

Extremely concise at 5 words with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the verb 'Update'. While appropriately efficient per sentence, the overall length is insufficient for the tool's 11-parameter complexity (captured in Contextual Completeness).

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 11-parameter mutation tool with conditional logic (STDIO vs SSE vs HTTP), the description is inadequate. It omits critical context: required vs optional fields, relationships between 'type' and transport-specific parameters ('command'/'url'), and expected return values.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics (e.g., conditional requirements between 'type' and 'command'/'url'), but this is acceptable given the comprehensive schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('MCP server'), and uses 'existing' to distinguish from the sibling 'create_server'. However, it lacks scope clarification (partial vs full update) and doesn't differentiate from 'clone_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?

Only the word 'existing' implicitly hints that a UUID prerequisite is required. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. 'create_server', 'clone_server', or how to obtain the server UUID beforehand.

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