Refactoring MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits, such as whether it's a read-only operation, if it has rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects. For a status-checking tool, this is a significant gap, as users might assume it's safe without explicit confirmation.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. Every word earns its place by clearly conveying the action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, simple purpose) and the presence of an output schema (which should cover return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on usage scenarios or behavioral traits, which could be important for a status tool in a server environment. It meets the baseline but doesn't go beyond to provide full completeness.

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 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty), so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description appropriately avoids redundant information, earning a high score for not cluttering with unnecessary param semantics, as it focuses on the tool's purpose instead.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('MCP server metadata and uptime'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'refactoring_mcp_get_bundle' or 'refactoring_mcp_get_document', which might also retrieve metadata, though those seem focused on specific content rather than server status.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it's for monitoring, debugging, or initialization. With sibling tools like 'refactoring_mcp_list_documents' that might serve different purposes, this lack of guidance could lead to confusion in tool selection.

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