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 it states what the tool does (audits for security issues), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it makes any changes to configurations, what format the audit results take, or any performance/rate limit considerations.

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 communicates the complete purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and front-loads the essential information about what the tool does.

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 security auditing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose information but lacks important context about what the audit produces (results format, severity levels, remediation guidance) and operational considerations (permissions needed, whether it's safe to run, performance impact). The description is complete enough to understand what the tool does but not complete enough to use it effectively.

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 already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description doesn't contradict or confuse this aspect.

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 ('audit') and target resource ('all MCP server configs'), with explicit examples of what it looks for ('hardcoded secrets, tokens in args, and shell injection patterns'). It distinguishes from sibling tools 'bench' and 'scan' by focusing specifically on security auditing rather than general scanning or benchmarking.

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 - when you need to check MCP server configurations for security vulnerabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus the 'scan' tool (which might be more general) or 'bench' tool, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions for using this security audit tool.

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