verify_mcp_server

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

Without any annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does well by detailing the checks performed: provenance, requested permissions, unsafe operations in the tool surface, and known risk signals. It stops short of stating potential side effects or return behavior, but the verification focus makes side effects unlikely and the disclosed checks are genuinely useful.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains zero filler. Every clause adds value: the action, the timing, the specific checks, and the explicit call-to-action.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) with no output schema, but the description covers the trigger context, the verification scope, and the action rationale. It does not describe the return value or how to interpret results, which could be useful for a verification tool, but the essential context for selecting the tool is provided.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'server' parameter with a clear description and example. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, but the schema fully explains what is needed, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb 'Verify' and resource 'Model Context Protocol server' with the exact context ('before connecting to it or enabling its tools'). It also enumerates the verification dimensions (provenance, permissions, tool surface, risk signals), which makes the tool's scope unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_artifact or check_policy that target different resources.

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 an explicit temporal instruction ('Call before adding any third party MCP server') and clarifies when it should be invoked ('before connecting to it or enabling its tools'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the when-to-use guidance is strong and unambiguous.

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