FastMCP Development Assistant

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation that may return incomplete data. The description adds context by specifying it fetches from npm and includes both all versions and latest version, which is useful beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or response format details.

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 a single, clear sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words or redundant information. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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 has no parameters, annotations provide safety hints, but no output schema exists. The description adequately explains what the tool fetches, but doesn't detail the return format (e.g., JSON structure, error handling). For a read-only tool with open-world hint, more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter information. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it efficiently describes what the tool does without unnecessary details.

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 verb '取得します' (fetch/get) and the resource 'FastMCPパッケージのnpm上の全バージョンと最新バージョン情報' (all versions and latest version information of FastMCP package on npm). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'fetch-npm-types' or 'analyze-npm-types', but the purpose is specific enough to understand what it does.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. With sibling tools like 'fetch-fastmcp-readme' and 'fetch-npm-types', some usage differentiation would be helpful but is absent.

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