govuk-mcp

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing the return format: JSON with metadata, distinguishing between static resources ('uri') and templates ('uri_template' with placeholders). Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe. However, it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, pagination, or error handling, which could be useful for a list operation.

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 highly concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and output format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy for an AI agent to parse and 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 simplicity (0 parameters, read-only, with output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does and the return format, which complements the output schema. However, it lacks usage context relative to siblings, which is a minor gap in completeness for an agent needing to choose between tools.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the input (none required). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, but it implicitly confirms no inputs are needed by focusing on output behavior. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, though it doesn't explicitly state 'no parameters required,' which could enhance clarity.

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 tool's purpose: 'List all available resources and resource templates.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource types ('resources and resource templates'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'govuk_list_organisations' or 'read_resource', which prevents a score of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools such as 'govuk_list_organisations' for filtering or 'read_resource' for accessing specific resources, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of contextual usage information limits its effectiveness for an AI agent.

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