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. 'Say hello to the user' implies a simple, read-only output operation, but it doesn't specify what the tool returns (e.g., a greeting string), any side effects, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured behavioral hints.

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 a single, efficient sentence ('Say hello to the user') that directly states the purpose without any waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a formatted greeting), which is critical since there's no output schema. For a basic tool, more context on behavior and output is needed to be fully helpful.

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 description doesn't mention parameters, but the input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the single parameter 'name'. Since schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to compensate for low coverage.

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 'Say hello to the user' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('say') and target ('hello to the user'). It's not tautological with the name 'hello-world', which is more generic. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get-mcp-docs', which appears unrelated, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. With a sibling tool 'get-mcp-docs' that seems unrelated, there's no explicit or implied comparison, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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