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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions monitoring and returning a summary, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a blocking call, how events are delivered (e.g., streaming vs. batch), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. For a real-time monitoring tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral 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 appropriately sized with two clear sentences: one for the monitoring action and one for the return value. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary details. However, the second sentence could be slightly more specific about the summary format to enhance clarity without adding bulk.

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 complexity of real-time event monitoring, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., structure of the summary), how events are aggregated, or potential side effects (e.g., resource consumption during streaming). For a tool with behavioral implications and no structured output documentation, more context is needed.

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 three parameters (duration, filter, since) with their types, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to compensate for gaps. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles all parameter documentation.

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 ('monitor', 'returns') and resources ('real-time events from the MCPfinder registry'), explicitly listing event types ('new tool registrations, updates, and status changes'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which are about server configuration management) by focusing on event monitoring rather than server operations.

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. While it implies real-time monitoring, it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., whether the registry must be active) or compare it to other event-related tools (none are listed among siblings). There's no mention of when not to use it or what scenarios it's best suited for.

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