MCPfinder Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that this tool performs configuration changes ('add or update its configuration'), which implies mutation/write operations, but doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, whether changes are reversible, or what happens on success/failure. It mentions 'defaults are fetched/merged' for the command parameter, which adds useful context about default behavior.

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 tool's function, specifying prerequisites, and clarifying parameter usage. There's no redundant information, and key guidance is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 configuration mutation tool with 5 parameters (including nested objects) and no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the basic purpose and parameter relationships well, but lacks details about behavioral outcomes, error conditions, or what constitutes successful configuration. Given the complexity, more complete behavioral disclosure would be beneficial.

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 documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by explaining the mutual exclusivity between client_type and config_file_path and clarifying that server_id comes from search_mcp_servers, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('enables', 'add or update') and resources ('capabilities from a specific MCP server/tool', 'configuration in the client application'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_mcp_servers (which finds servers) and remove_mcp_server_config (which removes configurations).

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: it specifies that server_id should be 'obtained from search_mcp_servers results' and provides clear alternatives between client_type and config_file_path ('Provide EITHER client_type OR config_file_path'). This gives the agent concrete prerequisites and decision criteria.

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