MCPfinder Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's purpose and usage context well, but lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling, response format, or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs). The description doesn't contradict any annotations, but could provide more operational context.

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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently provide usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete for its purpose and usage. However, without annotations or an output schema, it could benefit from more details on what the retrieved information includes or behavioral aspects, leaving a minor gap in full contextual understanding.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or constraints), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 ('Retrieves detailed information') and resource ('about a specific MCP server/tool from the registry'), including what information is retrieved ('manifest and installation details'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying this is for getting detailed information after searching, not for searching, adding, removing, or streaming.

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 explicitly provides when to use this tool ('after finding a tool with search_mcp_servers to get more information') and when to use an alternative ('or directly use add_mcp_server_config to install it'). This gives clear guidance on the tool's role in the workflow relative to its siblings.

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