lm_mcp_probe

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which is a serious safety burden. The description is the only place clarifying that Stdio 'executes its configured program' as a side effect, while reassuring that no tool is actually invoked. That contradiction-resolution detail (executes a program but doesn't invoke a tool) is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the critical constraint. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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 a destructive, open-world operation with no output schema and an undocumented parameter, the description should at minimum clarify what 'name' refers to and what the probe returns. It covers the execution side-effect well but leaves the input and return shape unaddressed.

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 0% for the single required 'name' parameter. The description mentions only 'configured MCP' obliquely and never explains what 'name' should contain (a config profile name, a connection identifier, etc.). With low coverage the description is required to compensate and it does not.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: connect a configured MCP and list its real tools. The phrase 'real tools' meaningfully distinguishes it from lm_mcp_config (which likely manages configuration) and lm_mcp_call (which invokes a tool). It does not explicitly name those siblings, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 comes before lm_mcp_call via the clarifying 'no tool invocation', which tells the agent this is for discovery rather than execution. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over lm_mcp_config or lm_diagnose, so the guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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