Generate a personalized greeting from the local machine by providing a name. Use it to confirm the MCP server responds correctly.
Return a greeting from the local computer running this MCP server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The person or test phrase to greet. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the greeting originates from the local computer running the server, which clarifies local execution behavior. The description implies a safe, read-only operation, though it does not explicitly state side effects or failure modes.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the action and origin efficiently.
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?
For a one-parameter greeting tool with an output schema present, the description is complete enough. The agent has all essential information to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the only parameter ('name'). The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('greeting from the local computer running this MCP server'), making the tool's basic function clear. With no sibling tools, there is no need for sibling differentiation, so this is just below the top score.
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 gives clear context that this is a local greeting generator, so an agent can infer when to invoke it. There are no sibling tools or exclusions to mention, and no additional usage guidance is needed for such a simple tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.