create_mcp_server

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it registers the server and returns id/slug, but does not elaborate on potential side effects or additional behavior beyond creation. With minimal annotation context, the description provides some added value but not extensive behavioral detail.

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 concise, consisting of two focused sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides contextual workflow advice. While efficient, the second sentence could be slightly more compact, but no unnecessary information is present.

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 presence of an output schema (stated in context), the description appropriately omits detailed return value documentation. It mentions the returned id and slug. The description also advises on a necessary prerequisite step. For a creation tool with good parameter documentation, this is sufficiently complete.

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 for all 4 parameters. The description mentions the required parameters (name, mcp_integration_id) and notes slug and description are optional, but does not add new constraints or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 creates an MCP server under an existing integration. It specifies the resource ('MCP server') and action ('Create'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the prerequisite of using list_mcp_integrations.

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 explicit guidance: use list_mcp_integrations first to find the parent integration, then use this tool to create the server, and later use capabilities or access tools for configuration. This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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