add_remote_mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions proxy behavior but lacks details on side effects, authentication, rate limits, or what happens on failure. Insufficient for a registration tool.

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?

Extremely concise two sentences with no waste. Front-loaded with purpose and use case.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, description is too minimal. Lacks info on return values, validation, error handling, or any guarantees about the proxy behavior.

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?

Only 25% of parameters have descriptions in schema (url only). Description adds no further parameter details, leaving agents to guess semantics for name, shortDescription, alias.

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?

Description clearly states it registers a remote MCP server URL for proxying, and specifies use case for HTTP/SSE MCPs, differentiating it from siblings like add_npx_mcp.

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?

Explicitly states to use for HTTP/SSE MCPs hosted elsewhere, providing clear context. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools mentioned beyond the context.

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