NHN Server MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('조회합니다' - retrieves/checks), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the server is unavailable. For a configuration tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second elaborates on what specific information can be checked. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating scope details.

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 tool's complexity (simple read operation with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what data is retrieved but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions or error handling. For a configuration tool, more context about security or operational constraints would be helpful.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it does clarify what information is retrieved (allowed hosts, commands, server info), which adds context about the return data. This exceeds the baseline expectation for a zero-parameter tool.

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: '서버 설정 정보를 조회합니다' (retrieves server configuration information). It specifies the resource (server configuration) and verb (retrieves/checks), and mentions specific data types included (allowed hosts, commands, server information). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'reload_config' or 'connection_status'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'reload_config' (which might modify configuration) or 'connection_status' (which might check connectivity rather than settings). The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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