Import Servers from Claude

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds critical behavioral context: it reads multiple paths, shows a diff, creates .bak backups, copies entries, and optionally removes originals. This fully discloses the side effects and safety measures, going well beyond 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?

The description is four sentences, each earning its place: the first states the purpose, the second details sources, the third explains diff and confirm behavior, and the fourth covers optional stripping. There is no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but confirmed), the description need not detail return values. It covers the entire workflow: source paths, dry-run vs actual import, backup creation, and optional removal. The tool is of moderate complexity, and the description is complete for effective use.

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%, but the description adds meaning: it explains that confirm=false shows a dry-run diff, while confirm=true performs the import with backups. It also clarifies the optional stripping behavior for remove_originals. This adds value beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Import MCP servers from Claude config files into ~/.mcp-conductor.json'. This immediately distinguishes it from siblings like add_server (individual addition) and export_to_claude (exporting to Claude), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It implies usage by describing what it does, but does not mention alternatives or conditions. For example, it could say 'Use this to bulk-import servers from Claude; for single server addition use add_server instead.' The current description leaves the decision to the agent based on context.

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