get_mcp_server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat these. It adds value by specifying the return fields (parent integration, status, created time), which gives behavioral insight beyond the schema. No contradictions with annotations.

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 consists of two sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states purpose and return info, the second provides usage guidance. No extraneous words, front-loaded effectively.

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's simplicity (single parameter, output schema exists), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. Annotations and output schema cover the rest, so no gaps.

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% (the parameter 'id' has a clear description). The description adds only marginal value by mentioning 'by id or slug', which is already in the parameter description. Baseline score of 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 uses specific verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'one MCP server by id or slug', clearly stating the action and input. It distinguishes itself from get_mcp_integration by specifying when to use this tool for server records rather than integration config.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool vs. the alternative get_mcp_integration: 'use get_mcp_server when you need the server record rather than the integration config.' This provides clear context and an alternative, meeting the when/alternatives criterion.

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