Living Body — Capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context about the per-connector availability matrix, but does not disclose other behavioral details such as output size, latency, or whether the availability data is cached or dynamically computed.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately adds the most relevant distinguishing detail, the per-connector availability matrix.

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?

This is a low-complexity introspection tool with strong annotations and a response_format schema, and an output schema exists. The description is adequate for basic invocation, but it leaves the reader without explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling status/health tools.

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 description does not mention the sole parameter response_format. However, the schema itself supplies an enum of 'markdown' and 'json' plus a default, making the parameter largely self-explanatory, so the lack of parameter description is not a major usability gap.

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 identifies this as a self-description of the MCP and specifies the key content of a 'per-connector availability matrix'. It is distinguishable from most siblings because it focuses on capabilities rather than status, health, or data inventory, though it does not explicitly name or contrast siblings.

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 phrase 'Self-description of this MCP' implies the tool should be used when an agent needs to discover what the MCP can do and which connectors are available. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it differs from sibling tools like living_body_status or living_body_health_check.

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