govuk-mcp

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by disclosing that it returns a paginated list, which is useful behavioral context not covered by annotations. No contradictions with 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value without waste, making it easy for an AI agent to understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (read-only list operation), high schema coverage (100%), rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage, and behavioral aspects like pagination, without needing to detail return values or parameters further.

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%, with parameters 'page' and 'per_page' well-documented in the schema (e.g., page is 1-based, per_page has limits 1–50). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, as it mentions pagination but without extra details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb ('List') and resource ('all UK government organisations registered on GOV.UK'), specifying it returns a paginated list with specific fields (slug, acronym, type, status). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning its use for browsing the full government structure or discovering slugs for other tools like govuk_get_organisation or govuk_search filters.

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 provides when to use this tool ('to browse the full government structure or discover slugs for use with govuk_get_organisation or govuk_search filters'), offering clear alternatives and context. It helps differentiate from sibling tools like govuk_search by focusing on listing all organisations rather than filtering.

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