mcp_discover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only search and discloses return content ('quality scores, trust tiers, and install information'), which is useful. However, it omits behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, result ordering, or pagination, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three tightly written sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by return contents and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple search tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains what returns and when to use it. It does not cover result ordering, default limits, or error behavior, but those are minor given the tool's simplicity and the schema's parameter documentation.

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 all three parameters (query, limit, category) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, such as syntax hints or default behaviors beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully handles 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Search the MCP-Rating registry for MCP servers.' It distinguishes itself from mcp_connect by naming it as the follow-up step. However, it does not differentiate from other discovery-adjacent siblings like mcp_recommend or mcp_server_info, which prevents a 5.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Use this to find servers before connecting them with mcp_connect.' This tells the agent when to invoke it and the intended workflow. It stops short of exclusions or naming alternatives within the search space (e.g., mcp_recommend), so it is a strong 4 rather than a 5.

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