List MCP Server Tools

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying what information is returned ('tool names, descriptions, and input schemas') and providing concrete examples of usage patterns. While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description enhances understanding with practical implementation details without contradicting the annotations.

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 guidance, parameter overview, return specification, and practical examples - all in well-organized sections. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with no redundancy or wasted words.

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's moderate complexity, comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), and complete schema documentation, the description provides all necessary context. It explains the tool's discovery purpose, distinguishes it from alternatives, and provides implementation examples, making it fully adequate despite the absence of an output schema.

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 thoroughly documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, providing only basic examples without additional semantic context. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('List') and resource ('all available tools from a target MCP server'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing specifically on tools rather than prompts or resources, and explicitly mentions what information is returned (tool names, descriptions, and input schemas).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this to discover what tools a target MCP server provides') and distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle different operations (calling tools, getting/listing prompts, listing/reading resources). The examples further clarify appropriate usage contexts for different server types.

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