my-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the echoed message may include 'any configured prefix,' which adds some context about output behavior. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or other behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps.

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 well-structured and concise, with clear sections for purpose, arguments, and returns. Every sentence earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the main functionality, making it efficient and easy to parse without any wasted words.

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's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, parameter, and return behavior, though it could benefit from more behavioral context. The output schema reduces the need to detail return values, so it's mostly 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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that explains the 'message' parameter as 'The message to echo,' adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't provide details on format constraints, length limits, or examples, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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: 'Echo a message back to the client.' This specifies the verb ('echo') and the resource ('message'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, since there are no sibling tools, it doesn't need to differentiate from alternatives, so it doesn't reach the highest score of 5.

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, prerequisites, or context for its application. It simply states what it does without any usage instructions or exclusions, which is minimal but not entirely absent.

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