Get MCP Server Detail

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

Annotations are minimal (only title), so the description carries the burden. It indicates a read operation ('get') but does not disclose any behaviors like error handling, permissions, or exactly what 'detailed information' entails. No contradictions, but limited added value beyond the name.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource.

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 low complexity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is adequate. It could be improved by hinting at using the ID from search results, but the current level is sufficient for a simple detail-retrieval tool.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameter documentation, including a description and example for server_id. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('detailed information about a specific MCP server'). The word 'specific' distinguishes it from sibling search_mcp_servers, making its scope unambiguous.

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 clearly implies usage: when you know the server ID and need its details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'specific' wording effectively communicates the use case, especially in contrast to the search sibling.

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