MCP-Tools listen

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing that the tool actively starts servers, a behavioral side effect not captured by readOnlyHint or idempotentHint. It also clarifies that it retrieves the 'real' tool list, adding useful context about the operation's outcome.

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 primary action and result. No redundant or filler content exists, and every word contributes meaning.

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 explains what the tool does and what it returns (the tool list), which is sufficient given the annotations and full parameter documentation. It does not detail error behavior or pagination, but those are not essential for a read-only listing tool with optional parameters.

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%, so all five parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 clearly states the tool starts local or profile-defined MCP servers and reads their tool lists via MCP list_tools. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like controlcenter_list_local_servers or controlcenter_list_stacks.

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 context (when you need to start servers and retrieve their actual tool lists) but does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives or any exclusions. Sibling tools exist for related but distinct purposes, yet no comparison or guidance is provided.

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