Audit Registry Entry

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint it discloses that remote and repository URLs are compared as text and never contacted — a material behavioral fact for an open-world tool — and frames findings as indicators rather than verdicts, with an explicit caveat that an empty report is not proof of safety. It also notes coverage lists which checks ran and which were skipped. The only shortfall is that it does not say where the registry data comes from or how fresh it is.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then separates conditional guidance into labeled "Use when" / "Prefer another tool when" blocks, followed by caveats. The opening sentence is a long dash-delimited run-on list, but every sentence carries non-redundant information and nothing is filler.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with a full schema, annotations, and an output schema, this covers everything an agent needs: what is checked, when to use it instead of audit_server, the exact-case requirement, the non-contact behavior, the interpretive limits of findings, and the presence of a coverage field explaining skipped checks.

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% and the schema already documents the <namespace>/<name> format and case sensitivity, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds operative meaning beyond the schema by stating that the name must be copied exactly and that a different case is reported as not found, which explains the consequence of getting the value wrong.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Check an MCP Registry entry") and enumerates the concrete checks performed: repository URL/package consistency, owner vs repository, package/version existence, ownership markers, status, remote URLs, with rule IDs RG001-RG011. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling audit_server, so the agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Contains an explicit "Use when" clause naming the triggers (consistency, status, ownership markers, remote URLs) and a "Prefer another tool when" clause naming audit_server for full server checks. It also warns that names are case-sensitive and that a wrong-case name yields a not-found result, which is real routing guidance.

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