MCP server inventory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It explicitly discloses that only environment variable NAMES are read and values are never read, providing a non-obvious privacy/safety guarantee. It also clarifies that the output includes which config declares each server, which is useful behavioral context.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a critical detail about environment variable values. There is no fluff, and the information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple: no parameters and no output schema. The description adequately conveys what the tool returns (servers and their declaring configs) and includes a safety note. It does not explicitly describe the return format (e.g., list vs table), but for an inventory tool this is enough. Slightly more detail about the source of the config data would have made it a 5.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so no parameter documentation is needed. Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline 4. There is no missing parameter information to penalize.

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 identifies the tool as an inventory of every MCP server configured across agent clients on the machine, plus which config declares each server. This specific verb-like framing ('Every MCP server configured...') distinguishes it from sibling tools like context_budget or skill_costs, and matches the title 'MCP server inventory'.

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 clear use case: 'useful for spotting servers you forgot you installed.' This gives the agent context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. That matches a 4: clear context without exclusions.

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