Hanzo MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('disable') but doesn't explain what 'disable' entails (e.g., stops processes, removes from lists, requires permissions), the potential effects (e.g., irreversible, temporary), or any constraints like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured but could be more integrated; however, there's no wasted text, making it efficient overall.

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 complexity of a disable operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'disable' means behaviorally, what the return value entails, or how it interacts with siblings, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal semantics by naming the parameter ('name') and indicating it's for the server to disable, but doesn't clarify the format (e.g., string identifier, case sensitivity) or provide examples, failing to adequately document the single parameter beyond basic labeling.

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 verb ('disable') and resource ('external MCP server'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'enable_external_server' beyond the opposite action, missing a direct comparison that would warrant 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'enable_external_server' or 'list_external_servers'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the server must be enabled first, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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