mcp_add_from_discovery

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

The only annotation is readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden of disclosing write behavior. It says 'Register' but does not say whether this persists an adapter, overwrites an existing registration of the same name, validates the payload, or is idempotent — critical for a mutation tool with no other behavioral coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the trigger (discovery_suggest payload) leads and the payload fields follow. It is tight but verges on under-specification rather than true concision.

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 four-parameter, nested-object mutation with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin: it never explains the 'suggestion' object, how top-level fields relate to it, whether parameters are required, or what is returned on success.

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 coverage is 0% and all four parameters (name, config, protocol, suggestion) are undocumented. The description names protocol/name/config, but its fourth item ('confidence') does not correspond to any top-level parameter and the required 'suggestion' object is never mentioned, so it only partially compensates and introduces ambiguity.

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?

States a specific verb ('Register') plus the resource ('an adapter') and the source of its input ('a discovery_suggest payload'), which separates it from the sibling mcp_add (manual registration). A reader can tell what it does without opening the schema, though 'adapter' vs 'server' and the relationship to mcp_add remain implicit.

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 mention of a discovery_suggest payload suggests this should be called after discovery_suggest produces a suggestion. There is no explicit when-to-use, no precondition (e.g., must the suggestion be freshly probed?), and no statement of when to prefer mcp_add instead.

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