get_mcp_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavior. It discloses the privilege requirement and that the result is 'full details' including mcp_url. However, it does not explain what other fields constitute 'full details', nor address error cases or return format, which is a moderate gap for a read operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word contributes meaning. No filler or repetition of schema/annotation data.

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 single-parameter get tool, the description covers what it does, the input key, a key part of the output, and a needed privilege. It is not exhaustive (e.g., no full return-field list), but completeness is adequate given the low complexity and absence of output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'handle' is the lookup key, which adds some meaning over the bare schema. Yet it does not define what a handle is or specify any format constraints, providing only minimal added value.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('one AI Hub MCP server's full details') along with a scope ('by handle'). It also highlights a unique output detail ('incl. mcp_url') and clearly distinguishes this single-item fetch from siblings like list_mcp_servers or get_mcp_server_policies.

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 states a prerequisite ('Needs the MCP privilege') but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as list_mcp_servers for enumerating servers. The use case (fetching one server by handle) is implied, but no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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