Register MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare non-read and non-destructive mutation. The description adds context about transport constraints and runtime policy restrictions, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., persistence, overwriting, validation) or return behavior. The policy note provides some value beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action ('Register an MCP server'), followed by a compact list of transport rules. No redundant information with schema or annotations.

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?

Despite annotations, the description lacks critical operational detail: how the server is identified, what input the tool accepts (schema is empty), what happens on success/failure, and whether registration persists. The transport guidance is useful but does not cover the overall registration workflow, leaving the tool ambiguous for an agent.

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 has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description enriches the empty schema by explaining the three transport modes (http, sse, stdio) and their appropriate use, which is not evident from the schema itself.

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 the specific verb 'Register' with the resource 'MCP server', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like register_http_target, register_github_actions, etc. It also adds protocol specificity (http, sse, stdio), making the scope concrete.

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 explicitly instructs when to use http, sse, or stdio based on server type, including exclusions (sse only for legacy, stdio only if policy-allowed). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like register_http_target, so differentiation relies on the tool name.

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