Connect another INITE server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by declaring the exact return payload — URL, Claude Code command, Cursor/VS Code install links, and the claude.ai/ChatGPT custom-connector step — which is real behavioral information beyond the annotations.

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 first sentence front-loads a dense parenthetical catalog of servers and features that is hard to parse ('signed in: add a tool, its card, premium'). The trigger and parameter guidance arrive only after that enumeration. It is information-rich but not tightly structured, so it lands at adequate rather than efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not detail return shape — and it briefly does anyway. With annotations covering the safety profile, a single optional enum parameter, and no nesting, the agent has enough to invoke this correctly. Remaining minor gap is no explicit mention of sibling routing tools.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum values are self-describing, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds value by explaining the effect of the parameter: supplying `for` narrows the result to the single server that fulfils the need, and omitting it (per schema) yields all servers. That routing behavior is meaningful context beyond the schema text.

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 states a concrete action and resource: it enumerates INITE's other MCP servers and returns the material needed to add each one to the current client. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by framing itself as the escalation path when the current server cannot satisfy the request. The phrasing is muddled in places (e.g. 'its signed-in door'), but the core purpose is recoverable.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Call it when the person wants something this server does not do', plus the mechanics of 'give `for` to get the one server that does it'. No alternative sibling is named (e.g. match_mcp/match_tools), so it falls short of a full when/when-not comparison, but the intent is clear.

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