MCP-Server beschreiben

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the source file (mcps.catalog.v1.json) but no further behavioral context such as output format or potential errors, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded with the purpose (describes a local MCP server) and free of any superfluous wording. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it optimally concise.

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?

For a describe tool with no output schema, the description lists the aspects covered (type, namespace, sovereignty, wrapping, composition), giving the agent a clear expectation of what will be returned. It does not detail the output format, but annotations cover safety and the schema covers parameters, leaving only the return structure unspecified – a minor gap for a read-only describe operation.

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%, with both parameters (serverId and mcpRoot) fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 verb 'beschreibt' (describes) and the resource: a local MCP server from mcps.catalog.v1.json, listing the specific aspects covered (type, namespace, sovereignty, wrapping, composition). This differentiates it from sibling describe tools like controlcenter_describe_resource and controlcenter_describe_stack, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or related describe tools, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the name and description.

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