mcp_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it frames the tool purely as a read-only viewer ('View usage analytics'), while the schema exposes a 'reset' action documented as 'clear all data'. A destructive capability is left undisclosed, which could lead an agent into irreversible data loss. No mention of permissions or reversibility.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then the metrics. Zero wasted words and appropriately sized for the tool.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a multi-action tool that includes a destructive 'reset', the description should say more than it does. It omits the existence of non-viewing actions and any warning about data destruction, leaving a significant gap for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 four parameters (slug, limit, action, threshold) are already documented in the schema, including enum meanings. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('View') and resource ('usage analytics for connected MCP servers') and enumerates the metrics returned (call counts, latency, error rates, recent activity). It is distinguishable from siblings like mcp_gateway_health or mcp_audit, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over mcp_gateway_health, mcp_audit, or mcp_server_info, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., that a server must be connected). The description offers no when/when-not context at all.

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