list_mcp_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic listing action and does not disclose potential side effects (though likely none), error behavior, authentication needs, or what 'connected' implies. This is a minimal disclosure that adds little beyond the tool's name.

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 filler, making it concise and easy to parse. However, it is slightly under-specified for a 0%-coverage schema, so it does not fully earn the top score.

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 has one parameter and an output schema (which likely lists return values), the description is a minimum viable summary. It lacks contextual details about prerequisites (e.g., server must be connected) and error cases, but for a simple listing tool, this may be acceptable.

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%, and the description does not explicitly reference the server_name parameter or add meaning beyond the schema. The phrase 'connected MCP server' hints at the parameter but does not explain requiredness, format, or how to identify valid server names. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 states the tool's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tools on a connected MCP server'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_mcp_servers (which lists servers) and call_mcp_tool (which calls a tool), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this tool when you need to see what tools are available on a particular connected MCP server. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., list_mcp_servers) or provide exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer when this is the right choice.

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