Debugging MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior as establishing a TCP connection and mentions prerequisites (debug adapter must already be listening). However, it doesn't specify what happens on failure, whether the connection persists, or any authentication requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 three sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the core function, specifying prerequisite relationships with sibling tools, and providing concrete usage examples. There's no wasted language, and the most critical information (what the tool does and when to use it) appears first.

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 connection-establishing tool with 5 parameters (1 required) and no annotations or output schema, the description provides good context about purpose, prerequisites, and sibling relationships. However, it doesn't describe what happens after connection (e.g., connection state management, error handling, or what the tool returns), which would be helpful given the lack of 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 5 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'specified host and port' generically but provides no additional syntax, format, or usage details about parameters. 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 specific action ('Establishes a TCP connection') and target resource ('to a running Debug Adapter Protocol server'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'inspect_runtime_state' and 'evaluate_expression' by stating it must be called before those tools, establishing a clear hierarchy and purpose differentiation.

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 ('before `inspect_runtime_state` or `evaluate_expression`') and prerequisites ('The debug adapter must already be listening on the specified host and port'). It gives concrete examples of when the debug adapter would be listening (Node.js app with `--inspect-brk`, VS Code debug adapter in server mode), offering clear context for appropriate usage.

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