register_mcp_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 discloses that the provided URL becomes part of the token audience, that the tool returns resource metadata, and that the returned metadata must be published at /.well-known/oauth-protected-resource. It does not cover permissions or failure cases, but the primary side effects and required follow-up are clear.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the description is a dense run-on paragraph that mixes parameter listings, behavioral notes, and an instruction to the assistant about formatting output. It would be substantially clearer if split into sections, though most sentences do carry useful 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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all parameters, the important URL-in-audience behavior, the return concept, and the mandatory post-registration publication step. It is sufficient for a first call, though exact output field names and permission requirements are omitted.

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 supply semantics. It does explain access_token_expiry is in seconds, provider conditionality, and the URL's audience role. However, it uses parameter names that do not match the schema: 'url' vs mcpServerUrl, 'access_token_expiry' vs accessTokenExpiry, and 'use_scalekit_authentication' vs useScalekitAuthentication, which can lead an agent to construct calls with invalid keys.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Register a new MCP server in the specified environment.' The word 'new' clearly distinguishes it from update_mcp_server and list_mcp_servers, and the environment scope is explicit.

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 context that this tool is for creating a new MCP server and provides an explicit conditional for provider: it is needed only when useScalekitAuthentication is false. It does not name alternatives like update_mcp_server or list_mcp_servers, but the usage context is still actionable.

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