MCP Server Boilerplate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Make an MCP server' suggests a creation/write operation, but doesn't clarify what exactly gets created (documentation? server instance?), whether this requires specific permissions, what the output format is, or any rate limits. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the implied creation action.

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 ('Make an MCP server') but this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness. While it's not verbose, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The single sentence doesn't earn its place by providing meaningful guidance beyond the tool name.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague purpose, the description is insufficiently complete. The agent needs to understand what 'making an MCP server' entails, what the expected outcome is, and how this differs from the sibling 'hello-world' tool. The current description leaves too many open questions about the tool's function and appropriate usage context.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the single 'name' parameter thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information 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' without clarifying what 'get' means or what 'docs' refers to. It doesn't specify whether this creates documentation, retrieves documentation, or builds a server instance. The description fails to distinguish this tool from its sibling 'hello-world' or provide a clear verb+resource combination.

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 comparisons to the sibling 'hello-world' tool. The agent receives zero direction about when this tool is applicable versus other approaches.

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