get-mcp-docs

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. 'Make an MCP server' suggests a creation/write operation, but the description doesn't clarify what this action entails, whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if a server with that name already exists, or what the expected outcome is. No behavioral traits are disclosed beyond the vague verb 'make'.

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 extremely concise at just three words, but this brevity comes at the cost of meaningful information. While it's not verbose or repetitive, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The single sentence doesn't waste words but fails to provide necessary context.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the description is insufficiently complete. For a tool that appears to perform some kind of creation operation (based on the verb 'make'), the description should explain what gets created, what the result looks like, and any important constraints. The current description leaves too many unanswered questions about the tool's behavior and outcomes.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'name' clearly documented as 'The name of the MCP server.' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Make an MCP server' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get-mcp-docs' in different words. It doesn't specify what 'make' means in this context (create? generate? fetch?), nor does it clarify what 'MCP server' refers to. The description fails to distinguish this tool from its sibling 'hello-world' or explain what resource it operates on.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparison with the sibling 'hello-world' tool. Users are left with no information about when this tool should be selected over other options.

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