mcp_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that health returns 'SSE/cache metrics' and prompt_context returns 'AI priming context', but does not disclose whether operations are read-only, require special permissions, or have side effects. The behavioral profile is minimally covered.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that lists the three actions with parenthetical explanations. Every word is informative and necessary; no redundancy or fluff.

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 description adequately explains the one parameter and its options. However, without an output schema, it omits what the return data looks like for each action, which is important for an agent to interpret results. It's functional but could be more complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning by explaining each enum value (e.g., 'health (SSE/cache metrics)', 'prompt_context (AI priming context for this home)'). This compensates for the empty schema, though more detail on the actions' outputs would improve it further.

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 retrieves 'MCP server metadata' and enumerates three specific actions: health, capabilities, prompt_context, each with brief explanations. While distinct from siblings like 'get_system_summary', it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself, though the purpose is well-defined.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The actions imply usage contexts (e.g., health for monitoring, prompt_context for AI priming), but there is no direct comparison or when-not-to-use advice, leaving the agent to infer.

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