get_mcp_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape (detail, issues, code locations), which is valuable given there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or cost, and the note about agents being 'embedded in asset' is a data-model aside that is more confusing than clarifying.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded and earns its place. The second sentence leaks RST double-backtick markup and spends its length on an internal backend detail that does not help an agent decide or invoke, weakening the structure.

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 single-parameter read tool the definition covers the essential purpose and return contents, so it is close to adequate. The unconsummated asset_id semantics and the absence of any usage contrast with the lookalike list tool leave a real 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?

There is one required parameter at 0% schema coverage, and the description never states what asset_id identifies or its format. The oblique reference to `asset` as the MCP-server scope hints at a relationship but does not give the agent a usable definition of the identifier.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Get an MCP server's detail') and even enumerates the payload ('plus its issues and code locations'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_mcp_servers. It stops short of explicitly naming the plural list tool as the alternative, so it is clear but not fully self-differentiating.

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 singular 'get' against a known MCP server implies fetching one server's detail rather than browsing. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of the list_mcp_servers alternative. The second sentence addresses backend data modeling, not invocation guidance.

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