call_mcp_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies that the server must be connected, but does not explain side effects, error cases, return format, or any security implications. This is a significant gap for a generic invocation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. For a simple tool, this is appropriately concise, though it lacks necessary details, which affects other dimensions rather than this one.

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?

Despite having an output schema and only three parameters, the description over-relies on the schema. It does not explain how arguments should be structured, what 'connected' means operationally, or what the output represents. This is incomplete for a generic MCP invoker.

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?

There is 0% schema description coverage and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (server_name, tool_name, arguments). The tool name provides little semantic value for a generic forwarder, so the description fails to help the agent understand how to populate these fields.

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 ('Call') and identifies a clear resource ('a tool on a connected MCP server'), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_mcp_tools and connect_mcp_server. However, it does not elaborate on what kinds of tools or the nature of the call, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites like server connection status, or how this compares to list_mcp_tools or other related operations.

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