auth_mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions actions and that the tool returns text, but it does not disclose important aspects like token storage, side effects of login/logout, error handling, or rate limits. For an authentication tool, 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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds information, though the second sentence could be more structured. No redundant or filler content is present.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and the sensitive nature of authentication, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'text' means, return value format, error conditions, or any prerequisites (e.g., server must be running). A more detailed description is warranted.

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 the baseline is 3. The description explains that name is required for login/logout/status, which is already in the schema's description. It adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so score remains at the baseline.

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 the tool is for OAuth on MCP servers and lists the supported actions (login, logout, status, list). This provides a specific verb+resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like manage_mcps, though the focus on authentication is 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as manage_mcps or other tools. There is no indication of prerequisites, context, or situations where this tool should not be used, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.

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