get-server-info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'returns information' but doesn't disclose what type of information, format, potential errors, or behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Returns information about this MCP server') and doesn't include redundant or verbose explanations. Every word earns its place, making it highly 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'information' includes (e.g., server version, capabilities, status), the return format, or error handling. For a tool that could return complex metadata, this lacks necessary context for 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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly doesn't mention any. With no parameters to document, it meets expectations without adding unnecessary details, earning a baseline 4 for this dimension.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('information about this MCP server'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on server metadata rather than accessibility-specific data like roles, attributes, or validation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential server-info siblings that might not exist.

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 prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or compare it to other tools for server metadata. With many sibling tools focused on accessibility data, some implicit differentiation exists, but no explicit usage instructions are given.

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