MCP Tool Auditor

get_best_practices

Retrieve a research-backed checklist of best practices for writing MCP tool descriptions, derived from 2026 papers and real-world agent testing. Use it to improve tool quality and agent accuracy.

Instructions

Return the current checklist of MCP tool-description best practices derived from research (2026 papers + real-world agent testing). Use this as a reference when writing new tools.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_best_practices"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation ('Return the current checklist') and adds context about the source (research + testing). However, it does not disclose details like response format, potential size, or any limitations, which would enhance transparency for a tool with no annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only essential information. Every phrase earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (0 params, no output schema), and the description explains what it returns and when to use it. It could add the return format, but the term 'checklist' sufficiently implies a list, making the description complete enough for its low complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema is empty (0 parameters), and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately avoids mentioning parameters since there are none, and it adds no unnecessary parameter-related details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource ('checklist of MCP tool-description best practices'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like audit_tool and rewrite_tool_description by focusing on a reference checklist rather than action-oriented operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly states when to use the tool: 'Use this as a reference when writing new tools.' It provides a clear context but does not mention exclusions or alternatives, though the sibling tools are distinct in purpose.

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

Deploy Server