mcp:import

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'Call this first to get the import guide' without clarifying whether the tool actually imports or just returns instructions. This ambiguity limits transparency.

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?

Description is relatively concise with three sentences, though the instruction 'Never ask the user for API keys or secrets in chat' is a behavioral directive for the agent, not a tool description, slightly reducing efficiency.

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?

With no output schema or parameters, the description covers the basic purpose but fails to specify the tool's return value or behavior after invocation, leaving ambiguity about whether it performs the import or only provides a guide.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and description adds no additional parameter info beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states the tool imports an MCP server as a global app, with a specific verb and scope. It distinguishes from project-level usage by referencing native config files, making the 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?

Provides explicit guidance to use native config for project-level MCP, indicating when not to use the tool. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like skill:import, though the scope difference is implied.

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