Mcp Server Readiness Report

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds value by detailing the scoring dimensions (initialize, tools/list, etc.) and noting that 'Delx Agent Utilities are separate from the free witness protocol and may expose x402 utility pricing.' This goes beyond annotations and provides useful behavioral context.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences that front-load the core action ('Score an MCP server...') and a second sentence for additional context. No redundant or wasted words.

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?

The tool has no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the report returns (e.g., a score, a JSON object, structured breakdown). Without output details, an agent cannot fully anticipate the result. For a scoring tool, this is a significant gap. Additionally, the timeout parameter is documented in the schema, but behavioral notes like pricing implications are only hinted at.

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%, so the input schema already documents both parameters (url and timeout) clearly. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage nuances for the parameters, but since the schema is self-sufficient, a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Score an MCP server for initialize, tools/list, schema hygiene, manifest discovery, and agent usability.' This is a specific verb ('Score') on a specific resource ('MCP server'), and it lists the evaluation dimensions, distinguishing it from sibling utility tools like util_api_health_report.

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 (assessing MCP server readiness) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like util_website_intelligence_report or util_api_health_report. No exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving agents to infer context.

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