MCP Infra Lens

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

Annotations already establish read-only/non-destructive safety. The description adds the specific metric domain (CPU/memory/load) and temporal nature ('historical'), but omits details on data granularity, aggregation methods, rate limits, or return format that would help the agent understand the data volume or structure.

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?

Single efficient sentence with action-oriented front-loading. No wasted words; every term serves to specify the resource type or scope. Appropriate length for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Adequate for basic invocation but misses important workflow context: it fails to mention the baseline/snapshot ecosystem evident in sibling tools ('record_baseline', 'compare_to_baseline') and the 'label' parameter description, which would help the agent understand this tool's role in a metrics collection workflow. No output schema exists, yet the description doesn't hint at the return structure (time-series vs. single values).

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%, providing complete documentation for all four parameters including the 'label' filter for baseline sessions. The description lists the three metric types (CPU/memory/load) reinforcing the enum, but adds no additional syntax guidance, validation rules, or format constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Clear verb 'Get' with specific resource (historical CPU, memory, load values) and scope (for a server). Distinction from siblings like 'analyze_server' or 'snapshot' is implied by the focus on historical metrics, though not explicitly contrasted.

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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'snapshot' or 'analyze_server', nor does it indicate that this retrieves raw historical data while 'compare_to_baseline' performs analysis. The relationship to the baseline workflow (implied by the 'label' parameter) is unexplained.

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