Create MCP Server

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true (write operation), destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that—only the auth type list, which is already in the schema. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, or post-registration steps.

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, front-loaded sentence containing no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope.

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?

This is a create tool with a nested config object and no output schema, yet the description does not explain what happens on success (e.g., returned server ID), whether OAuth requires a follow-up flow, or how standard_server_id fits. For an agent to use this tool correctly, more context is needed.

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 parameters are well-documented. The description only restates the auth_type options and provides no extra meaning beyond what the schema already says. 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 (Register) and resource (MCP server), and even enumerates supported auth types (no-auth, api_key, oauth). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling create tools like lyzr_create_agent or lyzr_create_workflow.

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 implies usage (when you need to add a new MCP server) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention related lifecycle steps like OAuth initiation or listing/deleting servers, so context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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