get_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the substantive return contents (requirements, install commands, notes, README config snippet), which is valuable given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about behavior for an unknown/invalid slug, whether the README snippet is always present, or any auth/rate 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?

One front-loaded sentence that states the operation and then lists the payload, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. Every clause conveys what the caller receives.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, enumerating the returned fields is the key missing piece and the description supplies it. Only edge behavior (missing/invalid slug, optional vs guaranteed sections) is left unspecified, which is a minor gap.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage including the source of the value ('from search_servers') and a concrete example. The description's 'by slug' adds only marginal reinforcement, so the baseline for a single fully-documented param applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('one server by slug') with an explicit enumeration of the returned content: what it does, requirements, install commands, notes, and the MCP client config snippet. The 'by slug' scoping clearly separates it from the sibling search_servers, which returns sets rather than one record.

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?

Usage is only implied: the schema's slug description ('Server slug from search_servers') chains this tool after a search, which suggests the workflow, but the description itself states no when-to-use condition, no alternative, and no exclusions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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