Discover the MCP server's available tools, nine audit domains, capability vocabulary, and denied permissions to understand which read-only codebase diagnostics it supports.
Describe this MCP server: available tools, the nine audit domains in the domainCoverage inventory, the Doctor capability vocabulary, and the permissions this server never grants.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and a closed-world posture, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely extra context by promising disclosure of 'the permissions this server never grants,' which tells the agent about hard capability boundaries rather than just restating read-only behavior.
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; each listed item (tools, audit domains, capability vocabulary, never-granted permissions) is load-bearing information about what the caller receives.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return content and does so by enumerating the four sections the response contains. It is nearly complete for a low-complexity read-only meta tool; only the guidance on when to invoke it is absent.
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?
Zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify at the input level. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool.
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 verb ('Describe') and resource ('this MCP server'), then enumerates the exact content returned (tools, nine audit domains, Doctor capability vocabulary, never-granted permissions). It is clearly distinct from the audit/verify/explain siblings, though it never names them or explicitly contrasts itself.
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 statement, no mention that this is the recommended first call for orientation, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the self-descriptive nature of the tool (an agent wanting an inventory of the server would infer this is the right call).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.