List Registered Servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the listing includes current status, which is useful, but it does not disclose filtering behavior, pagination, or the meaning of 'all' when filters are applied.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb 'List' and clearly specifies the resource and return focus. There is no redundant or extraneous content.

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?

The tool has two optional filter parameters, but the description says 'all registered' servers, which creates ambiguity about whether filters are supported and whether 'all' is literal. With no output schema and minimal return information, the description is adequate for a simple list but misses important filter semantics.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'tags' or 'status' parameters. The mention of 'status' in the description could be misinterpreted as a display field rather than a filter. Without additional context, parameter semantics remain ambiguous.

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 that the tool lists all registered MCP servers and includes their current status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_http_targets or list_gitlab_pipelines, which target different resource types.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_all or list_http_targets. There are no prerequisites or exclusions; usage is only implied by the resource name 'servers'.

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