list_mcp_servers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the pagination interaction and the requirement to ask before fetching further pages, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or the exact response structure beyond a vague 'tabular structured manner.' It also doesn't explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, though it's implied.

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, with three sentences covering purpose, parameters, and usage behavior. It front-loads the main purpose and then details parameters and interaction. The phrase 'Show the response in tabular structured manner' is slightly redundant but not overly verbose. It earns its place with essential information.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the invocation essentials: what it does, required parameters, and pagination behavior. However, it omits details about the response structure (fields returned, pagination limits) and doesn't address potential errors (e.g., invalid environmentId). Since there is no output schema to fill this gap, the description is somewhat incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate results.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so effectively: environmentId is described as required with a format hint ('env_<number>'), and pageToken is explained as needed for subsequent pages. This adds meaningful meaning beyond the raw schema, which only provides a pattern and default.

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 lists MCP servers in a specified environment, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like register_mcp_server and update_mcp_server by focusing on listing. The mention of environmentId adds specificity.

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 gives clear usage context: it requires environmentId and explains pageToken's role for pagination. It instructs the agent to ask the client before pulling the next page, which is a practical usage guideline. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, though siblings are contextually different.

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