mcp_doctor_scan

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

The verbs 'scans' and 'diagnoses' imply a read-only, non-destructive operation. No side effects or permissions are mentioned, but the phrasing naturally suggests no modifications. Since there are no annotations to rely on, this transparency is sufficient.

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 a single, compact sentence that conveys all necessary information without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about its function and scope. It does not describe output format, but that is not expected given the absence of an output schema.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter information to describe. Per the baseline rule, a score of 4 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 a specific action (scans) and a specific resource (MCP config files for three applications), and the diagnostic scope (server configurations, binary paths, env vars). It is distinct from sibling tools like diagnose_server (which likely targets a single server) and repair_json (which fixes issues), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 tells when to use the tool: when you need to scan and diagnose across multiple local MCP config files. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or compare against siblings, but the scope is clear enough that an agent can infer the appropriate context.

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