mcp_server_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read operation but says nothing about whether a connection is required, what happens if the slug is not found, permissions, or rate limits. For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every clause earns its place, though the dual-source phrasing could be tightened.

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?

A read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, so the description could reasonably explain what 'detailed information' is returned. It stops short of that, leaving the return payload unspecified, though the lookup scope is covered.

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% and the single 'slug' parameter is documented in the schema itself, so the description adds no additional meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('an MCP server') and clarifies the two lookup sources (registry or connected server). It distinguishes itself reasonably from siblings like mcp_discover and mcp_list_active, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 mention of 'registry or a currently connected server' implies when this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives such as mcp_discover. Usage is only inferable.

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