Call a Connected MCP Tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and usefully discloses that calls are forwarded to an explicitly allowed downstream MCP, that output is returned as original text/image/tool output, and that calls may change files or other state. It does not cover failure behavior, timeouts, or auth propagation, but it covers the key mutation and trust constraints.

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 three tight sentences: purpose first, then prerequisite discovery, then safety warning. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is buried.

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 bridge tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential discovery path, return behavior, and mutation warning. It remains silent on error handling and downstream auth behavior, but it is complete enough for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents server, tool, and arguments. The description adds the allowlist/trust framing and points to bridge_list for tool names and schemas, but it does not add syntax or deeper parameter semantics 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 states a specific action, 'Forward a tool call,' and a specific resource, an explicitly allowed downstream MCP, with clear return types. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling bridge_list by assigning discovery to that tool rather than to bridge_call.

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?

It explicitly directs the agent to use bridge_list with connect:true to obtain available tool names and schemas before calling. It also warns that calls may change files or other state and advises configuring only trusted commands and allowlisting necessary tools.

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