mcp_query_by_protocol

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds one piece of behavioral context beyond the annotations: the result set is scoped to 'live' adapters and tools rather than all registered entities. It does not explain what 'live' means operationally or how results are shaped.

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 or redundancy. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse for a tool whose key parameter is completely undefined.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description is the only source for what the tool returns, and it says nothing about the return shape or pagination. Combined with a fully undocumented required parameter and no differentiation from sibling listing tools, the definition leaves material gaps for an agent trying to call it correctly.

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 single 'protocol' parameter has no documented meaning anywhere except the phrase 'by protocol type'. The description does not enumerate accepted protocol values, state whether matching is exact or partial, or indicate case sensitivity, so the agent must guess at the accepted input format.

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 action (filter) and resource (live adapters and tools) qualified by protocol type, so the intent is unambiguous on its own. However it never differentiates itself from sibling listing tools such as mcp_list or mcp_health, leaving the agent to guess which query surface applies.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent is not told how this differs from mcp_list, nor what condition should route it here rather than to another discovery or listing sibling.

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