list_mcp_server_user_access

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds context about the returned data (default access mode, override flags, connection status), which is useful but not required beyond annotations. The score is adequate.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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?

With one parameter, high schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the return fields, and even references a sibling tool for 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'id' is well-documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning to this parameter, so a 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 action (list per-user access) and the specific resource (MCP server). It distinguishes from the sibling 'update_mcp_server_user_access' by recommending its use before that update, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 mentions using this tool before 'update_mcp_server_user_access', providing clear guidance for a common use case. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it gets a 4.

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