List MCP server resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the empty-resources-on-disconnect behavior and the gumloop_auth_url return, which is valuable operational context not in the annotations. It doesn't describe pagination behavior despite the cursor parameter, keeping it below 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it returns, the disconnected-state behavior, and the operation type. No filler and the core purpose 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?

For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the key edge case (disconnected server) and auth flow. It omits any mention of cursor-based pagination despite accepting a cursor, which is a small but real gap given no output schema explains next_cursor.

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 all four parameters including cursor, account, team_id, and server_id are documented in the schema itself. The description mentions the server concept but adds no syntax, format, or scoping detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

Specific verb (return) and resource (the resources an MCP server exposes), with the live-fetch qualifier that distinguishes it from static listings. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like list_mcp_server_tools, list_mcp_server_prompts, and read_mcp_server_resource without consulting schemas.

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 implies usage by stating it returns the resource list and explaining the auth flow, but never names an alternative or says when to prefer read_mcp_server_resource or list_mcp_server_tools instead. Usage context is inferable, not explicit.

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