Estado MCP interno de OpenCode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly states 'sin modificar configuración' (without modifying configuration), which is a key read-only behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other aspects like return format, error behavior, or prerequisites, so it is not fully transparent.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and key constraint. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, containing no unnecessary information.

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?

For a simple status-check tool, the description is quite complete: it states the action, scope, and non-mutating nature. The schema covers the parameter, and no output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return values. Missing is any mention of what 'estados' includes, but overall it is adequate.

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 100%, meaning the only parameter (directory) is well-described in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 queries MCPs connected to OpenCode and their states, with a specific verb ('Consulta') and resource. It also emphasizes it does not modify configuration, distinguishing it from potential mutation tools. This differentiates it from sibling tools like opencode_status by focusing specifically on MCPs.

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 implies usage by stating it queries MCP status without modifying configuration, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No alternative tools are named, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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