list_mcp_servers

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 states 'all configured' which clarifies scope (configuration vs. active connections) and implicitly indicates a read-only operation. However, it doesn't mention whether it includes credentials or status, but for a simple list operation this is acceptable.

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 with no extraneous words. It front-loads the action and resource immediately, making it easy to parse and fully sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 simplicity, the lack of parameters, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It fully explains what the tool does, and the sibling tools provide enough context for an agent to select it appropriately.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameter meanings, and the schema is empty, which aligns perfectly. No additional semantic value is required.

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 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'all configured MCP server connections.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect_mcp_server' and 'list_mcp_tools' by focusing on listing configured connections rather than managing or inspecting tools.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_mcp_tools' or 'connect_mcp_server.' While the purpose is clear, the description doesn't mention related tools or provide context on when this is the preferred choice, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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