Get mock servers (filter by workspace or team)

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds valuable behavioral context: that it returns only servers the user created, and that workspace takes precedence over teamId. These nuances go beyond the annotations without contradicting them, covering key aspects like ownership filtering and parameter precedence.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear main sentence followed by three bullet points with actionable guidance. No redundant information or filler. Each sentence earns its place, effectively communicating purpose and usage in under 80 words.

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?

For a simple list tool with two optional parameters, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns (active mock servers, user-created by default), how to scope results, and parameter precedence. While it doesn't describe the response format or pagination, the tool's name and purpose make these implicit, and the annotations cover safety. This is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters documented. The description adds cross-parameter constraints and guidance (prefer workspace, how to set teamId from /me, and precedence rules) that enrich the schema's per-field descriptions. This goes beyond the baseline, providing actionable context for parameter selection.

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 gets all active mock servers, and specifies that by default it returns only the user's own mock servers across workspaces. This distinguishes it from siblings like getMock (singular) by explicitly focusing on listing multiple servers, and adds scope details that clarify its purpose.

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 explicit usage guidance: always pass either workspace or teamId, prefer workspace, and explains how to obtain teamId via GET /me. It also clarifies precedence when both are passed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., getMock for single server), so it falls short of full 'when-not' guidance.

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