mcp-doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior (discovery and connection testing via JSON-RPC handshake) but doesn't mention potential side effects, error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description adds some value but lacks comprehensive behavioral 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 front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, 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.

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

Given the tool's complexity (discovery and testing operations) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on output format, error conditions, or operational constraints, leaving gaps for a tool with potentially significant behavioral implications.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and the baseline for this scenario is 4, as it doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.

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 ('Discover all MCP server configs and test their connections') and the method ('via JSON-RPC handshake'), providing a complete picture of what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'bench' and 'security' by focusing on discovery and connection testing rather than performance benchmarking or security analysis.

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 usage context (discovering and testing MCP server configs) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bench' or 'security'. It lacks guidance on prerequisites, timing, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.

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