get_mcp_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It labels the operation as 'Get', implying read-only, but does not state that it is safe or non-destructive. It also omits important behavioral context: that 'env' values are masked by default and that show_env_values can reveal raw secrets. The schema mentions this, but the description adds nothing beyond the basic operation.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It goes straight to the purpose and does not waste tokens. This is optimal for a simple getter.

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 straightforward retrieval tool with no output schema, the description provides the basic intent but leaves gaps. It fails to mention that the result includes environment variables, that they are masked by default, and that show_env_values toggles revelation. These details are only in the schema, so an agent unfamiliar with the tool might not realize the sensitive nature of the output. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description does not repeat or add anything about mcp_name or show_env_values. It passes the baseline threshold but does not enhance understanding of parameter usage beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clear action ('Get') and a specific resource ('full configuration for a specific MCP server'). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like list_all_mcps (which lists all) by focusing on 'specific'. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_all_mcps or check_mcp_health. The description does not mention prerequisites, expected context (e.g., when you already know the server name), or when not to use it. An agent must infer usage from the name and schema.

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