get_mcp_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read', indicating a read-only operation without side effects. However, it does not elaborate on failure behavior (e.g., missing file) or permissions. The description adds the scope but nothing else beyond the core read action.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource. It is efficient, with zero wasted words, and clearly conveys the two modes (full file or single entry).

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 the low complexity of this tool (two optional parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains what the tool does; the schema covers parameter details, and the output schema likely covers return format. The only gap is usage context relative to siblings, but that is minor for a simple read 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%, and both parameters have descriptive text in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond that, merely restating the scope in terms of 'whole file, or one server entry,' which aligns with the 'server' parameter. Since the schema already explains the parameters, a baseline 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 specifies the action 'Read', the exact resource 'config/mcp.json', and the scope 'the whole file, or one server entry.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling write tools like upsert_mcp_server or replace_mcp_config.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is the read counterpart to write operations, nor does it state any exclusions or conditions. The scope detail ('whole file, or one server entry') hints at usage but stops short of explicit guidance.

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