GitMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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, efficient sentence: 'Get MCP version information.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by directly conveying the tool's purpose.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on return format, error conditions, or integration context. For a basic informational tool, this is acceptable but leaves room for improvement in guiding 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 tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it meets the baseline expectation. No additional parameter information is required or provided, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 'Get MCP version information' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('MCP version information'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'version_bump' or 'version_validate' by focusing on retrieval rather than modification or validation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings, which prevents 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 doesn't mention use cases like system diagnostics, compatibility checks, or prerequisites. With siblings like 'health_check' and 'ping' that might serve overlapping diagnostic purposes, the lack of explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is a significant gap.

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