lookup_mcp_server

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly discloses the lookup behavior, the data facets returned, and the important edge case that unlisted servers still receive vetting guidance. It does not describe the exact output shape, but for a simple lookup tool this is a minor omission.

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 three sentences with no filler. The first sentence establishes purpose and result content, the second gives search modes, and the third explains unlisted-server behavior. Every sentence adds distinct value.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the input semantics, the returned information, and the fallback behavior for unlisted servers. A statement about whether the result is a single entry or a list would improve completeness, but the tool is simple enough that this gap is minor.

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?

The input schema already covers the query parameter with examples, giving 100% schema description coverage, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The phrase 'Search by name, capability or category' reinforces but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema. The description also does not specify what happens when the optional query is omitted.

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 'Look up' and the resource: an MCP server in the curated AIOps Field Notes directory. It also specifies the kind of information returned: connections, maintainer, and server classification (reference, vendor, or community). This distinguishes it from siblings like audit_mcp_config or check_config_compliance, which are about configuration auditing rather than directory lookup.

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 explains how to search the directory: by name, capability, or category. It also mentions what happens for unlisted servers, which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest any alternative sibling, leaving the differentiation to inference.

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