mcp_connect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it discloses the connection outcome (tools become available) but not trust-tier confirmation needs, persistence/reconnect behavior, or auth requirements, which live only in the schema for `confirmed` and `saveProfile`. Useful but incomplete 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the three invocation options. Zero filler, and the most decision-relevant routing info comes first.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core routing but omits the trust-tier confirmation flow, reconnect/profiles semantics, and error behavior. The rich schema compensates for parameter semantics, but behavioral completeness is thin.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the slug-vs-command-vs-url selection logic but largely restates what the per-parameter descriptions already say ('Use instead of command for remote servers'), adding only the OR framing.

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?

States a specific verb (Connect) and resource (MCP server) plus the effect (make its tools available), and names the sibling mcp_discover as the source of slugs. An agent can distinguish this from mcp_disconnect, mcp_list_active, and mcp_discover without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly lays out three mutually exclusive invocation modes (slug from registry, command+args to spawn, url for remote), which routes the agent to the correct parameter set. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or what to do on failure/confirmation, so not a 5.

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