proxy

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions that results include JSON-encoded EmbeddedResource results, without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only/destructive nature, authentication needs, or side effects.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the main purpose and using bullet points for clarity, with no superfluous 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 complexity of a proxy tool with multiple actions and types, the description provides moderate completeness: it explains the unified interface and hints at return types. However, it lacks details on pagination, error handling, or result structure beyond JSON encoding.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, repeating parameter types and actions without new context.

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 it is a main proxy tool for dynamic access to mounted MCP servers, listing specific actions (list, info, call) and types (tool, resource, prompt). It distinguishes from sibling tools which are for server management.

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 provides a unified interface for interacting with MCP capabilities, implying usage for accessing tools/resources/prompts. It does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but siblings are clearly different in purpose.

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