What's new in this server?

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It identifies the operation as reporting versions, changelog, and npm status, which implies a read-only action with no destructive consequence. It does not explicitly assert 'no side effects' or mention the network dependency for the npm check, but the described behavior is unambiguous.

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, front-loads the specific outputs, and then adds a practical use case. Every clause contributes and there is no redundancy.

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 optional parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and report categories. It explains what the tool returns (version, changelog, npm status) and gives a motivating example, making it complete for a simple informational tool.

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?

The single optional sinceVersion parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Only list changes after this version, e.g. '0.1.0'. Omit for all releases.'). The description reinforces this with 'optionally since a specific version' but adds no format-level meaning beyond the schema, so 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 opens with 'Report the running server version, the changelog for recent releases..., and whether a newer version is published on npm,' using a specific verb and enumerating concrete outputs. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling control tools like proxy_stop or proxy_update_transform by focusing on version/release information.

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?

It explicitly states 'Use this to learn what changed in recent releases — e.g. when in-repo skills seem out of date — without leaving the MCP,' giving a clear when-to-use scenario. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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