verify_mcp_protocol

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: version negotiation targets, handshake latency benchmarking, capability/tool count inspection, and no vulnerability scanning. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and every clause adds useful context: supported protocol versions, latency benchmarking, capability inspection, and the exclusion of vulnerability scanning.

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 description covers purpose, use cases, and exclusions, while the schema documents both parameters and an output schema exists. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly directing users to audit_mcp_server for full vulnerability scans, but nothing critical is missing for a read-only protocol check.

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 description coverage is 100%, and both endpointUrl and authHeader have clear descriptions and examples. The description itself does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Validates JSON-RPC 2.0 protocol compatibility and version negotiation with a remote MCP server'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling audit_mcp_server by explicitly stating it is 'without executing a full synthetic vulnerability scan'.

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?

Gives an explicit use-this-when list: 'Use this tool when you specifically need to test whether a remote server supports...' and covers several concrete scenarios. It also states what the tool is not ('without executing a full synthetic vulnerability scan'), but it does not explicitly name the alternative tool, audit_mcp_server, so the guidance is clear but not fully complete.

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