connect_mcp_server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects and behavior. It simply restates the action without explaining what connecting entails (e.g., spawning a process, network requirements, persistence, or side effects), leaving the agent with no behavioral context.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified for a tool with this complexity. It is concise but not effectively structured to convey necessary information.

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 tool's complexity, four parameters, and the lack of annotations or parameter descriptions, this minimal description is grossly insufficient. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the absence of any usage context or behavioral guidance.

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 four parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. It does not clarify the meaning of env, args, command, or server_name, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 identifies the action (connect) and resource (another MCP server), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_mcp_servers or call_mcp_tool, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, configuration steps, or scenarios where connecting is appropriate, and sibling tools such as list_mcp_servers are not referenced.

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