get_mcp_server

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

With no annotations, the description effectively communicates the tool's read-only nature by listing returned fields; however, it does not disclose potential side effects or rate limits, which is acceptable for a simple retrieval 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?

Single sentence front-loads the action and key details, with no redundant words; ideal conciseness for quick understanding.

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 simple input (single required parameter) and no output schema, the description adequately informs the agent of what is returned, including specific fields, making it complete.

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 100%; the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's id parameter description, meeting the baseline without additional value.

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 concisely states the tool retrieves full details of one MCP server by ID, specifying key fields (manifest, env, missingRequiredEnvVars), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_mcp_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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the context implies usage when a specific server ID is known, but lacks when-not scenarios or explicit comparison to list_mcp_servers.

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