mcp-doctor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'benchmark' implies a read-only measurement operation, it doesn't specify whether this affects server performance, what metrics are collected, whether it runs sequentially or concurrently, or what happens if servers are unavailable. The description lacks important operational context.

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, efficient sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately understandable to technical users.

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 benchmarking tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what results to expect (latency metrics format, success/failure indicators), how servers are identified, whether the benchmark runs once or multiple times, or what constitutes a 'configured' server. The description leaves too many operational questions unanswered.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the schema fully documents the empty input structure.

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 action ('benchmark response latency') and target ('all configured MCP servers'), using precise technical terminology. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'scan' and 'security' by focusing specifically on performance measurement rather than discovery or security assessment.

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 implies this tool should be used when you want to measure server performance, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison to other performance monitoring approaches.

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