inspect_server

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

The description discloses that extracted data may be incomplete or ambiguous, instructing the agent to use judgment. It also mentions that the raw README is returned for LLM reasoning. This adds value beyond the 'readOnlyHint' annotation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 structured into clear paragraphs with headings ('Args:', 'Returns:') and bullets. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While slightly verbose, every sentence adds value. Minor improvement would be trimming redundant phrases.

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 the return structure (extracted_config, raw_readme, confidence) and what is extracted (install commands, transport type, env vars, etc.). Given the tool's single parameter and the existence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema has one parameter ('repository_url') with no description. The description compensates fully by providing a detailed explanation in the 'Args' section, including an example ('e.g. "https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/servers"'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 fetches documentation and extracts configuration details from MCP server repositories. It uses specific verbs ('fetch', 'extract') and identifies the resource ('MCP server's documentation'). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search_servers' by specifying when to use this tool instead.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when search_servers returns incomplete data' or 'when you have a GitHub URL for a server not in the registry.' This provides clear context and an alternative, guiding the agent on appropriate invocation.

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