check_server

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

Despite no annotations, the description does not confirm read-only behavior nor mention side effects. It implies a non-destructive audit via 'returns' and 'probes', but lacks explicit disclaimers about permissions or reversibility.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and usage hint. No wasted words.

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 single-parameter check tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, output detail, and usage context. No missing elements.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description provides concrete examples ('@modelcontextprotocol/server-github', 'filesystem'), adding meaningful context 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?

Clearly states the action ('check the security') and the resource ('specific MCP server'). Specifies return values (trust score, risk level, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools (check_environment, check_file, etc.) by focusing on server security assessment.

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?

Provides explicit use case ('before installing or recommending an MCP server'). However, does not mention when not to use or directly contrast with sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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