List MCP Server Tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, output format, or permission requirements. Since annotations handle the key metadata, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 that directly states the tool's action and target. No wasted words, and it front-loads the key information.

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 simple list operation with one parameter, strong annotations, and no output schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. No additional context is necessary for such a low-complexity operation.

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%: the only parameter, server_id, is documented as 'MCP server id'. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema. Per guidelines, with full schema coverage, a baseline of 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 'List the tools exposed by an MCP server' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like lyzr_list_mcp_servers (which lists servers) and lyzr_list_mcp_server_resources (which lists resources). It is unambiguous and directly reflects the tool's name and function.

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 the user needs to see tools from a specific MCP server, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Given the large sibling tool list, explicit guidance would improve clarity, but the purpose is still inferable.

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