add_npx_mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose side effects like network access, system dependencies, or error behavior on missing packages. Only states the execution mechanism (npx + stdio).

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?

Two sentences with no extraneous text. Action verb 'Install' is front-loaded. Efficient and to the point.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain the installation process, prerequisites, or what 'obot' is. Adequate but could be more complete for a tool with this complexity.

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 coverage is 83%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. While the schema already describes parameters well, the description does not enhance understanding of how they affect behavior.

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 it installs a new MCP server running as `npx <package>` via stdio. It is distinct from siblings like add_remote_mcp, which likely handles remote servers.

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?

Specifies 'Use this for npm-published MCP servers,' providing clear context. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the sibling tool add_remote_mcp covers other cases, making usage boundaries implicit.

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