get_server_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval ('Get full details') and mentions that install instructions are included, but it does not explicitly state that it avoids any side effects or describe what happens if the slug is invalid. It provides some context but not comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get full details') and appends the key extra detail about install instructions. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary filler.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it states what the tool returns (full details) and what is included (install instructions). It could be enhanced by explicitly noting it does not install anything, but overall it covers the essential information needed.

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 already fully describes the single parameter 'slug' with 'Server slug (from search results)', which covers 100% of parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond implying the server is specific, but baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'full details about a specific MCP server', which directly states the tool's function. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_servers (list/search) and install_server (perform installation), as it focuses on retrieving detailed information for a known server.

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 context: use this tool when you need comprehensive details about a specific server, given a slug. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like install_server. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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