Get MCP server details

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description earns credit for adding payload context instead: install command, paste-ready config JSON, required env vars, maintenance status. It does not mention behavior on an unknown slug or any rate limiting, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: identity and lookup key first, then the returned fields. Every clause carries information and nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned artifacts (config JSON, env vars, links, maintenance status), which is the main completeness requirement for a simple single-param read tool. It omits error/not-found semantics, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 there is only one parameter, whose format and source ('from search_servers, e.g. github') are fully documented in the schema. The description's 'by slug' merely restates the key, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond the structured field.

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?

Specific verb (get) plus resource (one MCP server) scoped 'by slug', which cleanly separates it from the plural, query-driven search_servers sibling. It also enumerates the payload fields, so an agent knows exactly what kind of detail it returns before opening the schema.

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 phrase 'by slug' implies the caller must already have an identifier, which hints at the search_servers → get_server workflow, but the description never names search_servers as the prerequisite source or states when not to use it (the schema's slug field carries that pointer instead). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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