Discover Connected MCPs

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

With no annotations, the description does useful work: it discloses that downstream servers run under the user's local permissions, that a specific config file is required, and that connect=true starts downstream servers while the default only lists configurations. It stops short of covering error behavior or permission prompts.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no wasted text. The optional connect behavior and prerequisite are stated compactly.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key operational context: config prerequisite, local permission scope, and the difference between listing and connecting. Return shape is only briefly indicated.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the connect parameter's behavior but adds little beyond the schema for the server parameter.

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 verb and resource: 'List explicitly configured downstream MCPs'. It also clarifies the optional discovery behavior, though it does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling bridge_call tool.

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 explains what connect=true does and notes that a .awsm/bridges.json config is required, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus bridge_call or other bridge-related tools. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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