MCP Server Boilerplate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Make an MCP server' suggests a creation/write operation, but the description doesn't clarify whether this is a read, write, or configuration operation, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions needed, or response format.

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?

While the description is brief (3 words), this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single sentence doesn't earn its place by providing meaningful information beyond the tool name.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a description that fails to explain what the tool does or how to use it, this is completely inadequate. The description doesn't compensate for the lack of structured information about this tool's behavior and purpose.

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% (the single parameter 'name' has a clear description in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already documented in the input schema.

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 'Make an MCP server' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get-mcp-docs' without clarifying what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being accessed or what operation is performed, and it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'hello-world'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or comparison to the sibling tool 'hello-world', leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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