my-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool 'requests the MCP client to sample from an LLM' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, whether it's read-only or destructive, or how it handles errors. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic operation, leaving significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first two sentences. The Args and Returns sections are clearly structured. However, the description could be more concise by integrating the parameter explanations more seamlessly rather than as separate bullet points.

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 an output schema (which handles return values) but zero schema description coverage and no annotations, the description provides basic purpose and parameter information but lacks important context. It doesn't explain the 'ctx' parameter's purpose or how this tool relates to sibling LLM-related tools, leaving the agent with incomplete understanding of when and how to use this tool effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents two parameters ('prompt' and 'maxTokens') with basic semantics, but doesn't mention the third parameter 'ctx' at all. While it adds meaning for the two documented parameters, it fails to address the context parameter, leaving a significant gap in parameter understanding.

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: 'Demonstrates LLM sampling capability using the MCP sampling feature. Requests the MCP client to sample from an LLM on behalf of this tool.' It specifies the verb ('sample from an LLM') and resource ('LLM sampling capability'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'structuredContent' or 'startElicitation' which might also involve LLM interactions.

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 sibling tools or contexts where this sampling tool is preferred over others like 'structuredContent' or 'annotatedMessage'. There's no explicit when/when-not usage advice, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name alone.

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