MCP Dev MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful context about discovering prompt templates and the return format ('JSON object with prompts array'), but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error behavior beyond the timeout parameter.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, usage context, parameter listing, and return format - all in four concise sentences. Every sentence earns its place by providing distinct information without redundancy.

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 read-only list operation with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context. It explains the purpose, usage, parameters, and return format. The main gap is the lack of an output schema, but the description compensates by specifying the return structure. It could benefit from more behavioral details like error handling.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description's Args section repeats the parameter names and basic types but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('List all available prompts') and resource ('from a target MCP server'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like mcpdev_inspector_list_resources and mcpdev_inspector_list_tools. The second sentence further clarifies the purpose by explaining it's for discovering prompt templates.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to discover what prompt templates a target MCP server provides'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools. It implies usage for prompt discovery but lacks explicit exclusions.

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