check_mcp_registry_risk

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

Discloses the checks performed, the 'unknown' caveat, and pricing model. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so adequately for safety and cost awareness.

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?

Five sentences, front-loaded with core function, then usage, caveat, and pricing. Pricing info could be considered extraneous but does not harm clarity.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not explain the response format (e.g., risk levels or indicators), which would help an agent parse results. Otherwise covers input, behavior, and usage.

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?

Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds context for package_name ('limited coverage—no dedicated MCP package registry yet'), which is useful but not essential beyond the schema.

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 tool checks MCP server URLs or package names for three specific red flags: known-malicious IOC, typosquatting near well-known domains, and domain registration age. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the MCP ecosystem.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use before an agent connects to or installs a new, unfamiliar MCP server' and warns that absence of findings means 'unknown, not verified safe.' Does not provide when-not-to-use or alternatives among siblings, but the context is clear.

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