goclaw_mcp_server_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get details' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' include. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single required parameter) and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally provide more context about what 'details' are returned or any behavioral constraints. It meets basic needs but leaves room for improvement.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'MCP server ID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to find the ID. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get details') and resource ('registered MCP server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'goclaw_mcp_server_list' which likely lists servers rather than getting details of a specific one, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing a server ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'goclaw_mcp_server_list' or 'goclaw_mcp_server_get' vs 'goclaw_mcp_server_update'.

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