List configured MCP servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine extra context beyond that: it reads config files only and launches no processes, which tells the agent this is a passive filesystem read rather than a live connection attempt.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the scope of what gets listed is front-loaded ahead of the behavioral caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description gestures at the return shape ('with its transport') and the scopes covered. For a simple one-optional-param read tool with annotations carrying the safety profile, this is nearly complete, with only the exact result fields left unspecified.

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% for the single project_dir parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no defaulting or format guidance beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists every MCP server configured for this project') and enumerates the exact scopes covered (user, local, project in Claude Code, plus Claude Desktop). It does not explicitly name a sibling such as audit_mcp_config to differentiate the inventory use case from an audit use case, so it stops short of a 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 clause 'Reads config files only; launches nothing' implies the tool is for static inventory rather than live probing, which is useful context. However, it never says when to prefer this over siblings like audit_mcp_config or audit_server_tools, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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