Lokale MCP-Server listen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds behavioral context by stating it scans the local MCP root and lists found repos with metadata. No contradictions, but no additional side-effect or permission information is provided.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and result. It contains no wasted words and perfectly communicates the tool's purpose.

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 simple read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and appropriate annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains what is scanned, what is returned (repos with metadata), and the optionality of the root. No output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return fields.

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 fully describes the single optional parameter mcpRoot, including its default value. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses specific verbs ('scans' and 'lists') with a clear resource (local MCP repos with metadata). It distinguishes from siblings which target stacks, tools, profiles, and plugins. No other sibling lists MCP servers, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when you need to discover local MCP servers). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but since no sibling performs the same function, the context is sufficient. Score 4 because it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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