proxy

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It mentions result format (JSON-encoded EmbeddedResource) and that annotations provide type info, but fails to disclose key behaviors like safety (destructive actions), error handling, or auth requirements. For a proxy that can call arbitrary tools, this is insufficient.

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 6 sentences, clearly organized into purpose, capabilities, and result format. It is not overly verbose, though some repetition exists (listing actions twice). A minor trim could improve conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (multiple actions, types, and no output schema/annotations), the description provides a basic understanding but omits details like error behavior, the 'FastMCP prefixing' mentioned in the path parameter, or how to handle failures. Adequate but with gaps.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond the schema definitions, which are already clear. No value added over structured data.

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' and lists specific capabilities (listing, info, calling across tools, resources, prompts). It is distinct from sibling 'magg_*' tools which focus on server management, not generic proxy access.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'use this for direct interactions, use magg_* for server configuration'). Usage context is implied by the sibling tool names, but no direct guidance or exclusions are provided.

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