mcp_index_get_server

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. It only states 'Get all tools', which implies a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or potential side effects. The description is insufficient for understanding behavior beyond the basic action.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is concise with no redundancy or wasted words, achieving maximum efficiency.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not explain the format of the returned tools list or any constraints. For a simple read operation, it is adequate but leaves gaps about the response structure.

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% with parameter 'server_id' having a description. The description adds context that the tool returns all tools for a specific server, reinforcing the parameter's meaning. However, it does not add detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get all tools for a specific MCP server' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all tools for a specific MCP server'. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'mcp_index_get_tool' which presumably returns a single tool, and 'mcp_index_search' which searches across servers.

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 implies usage for listing tools for a given server but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. It lacks exclusions or comparisons to siblings like mcp_index_get_tool.

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