List MCP server tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: when the server is not connected, `tools` is empty and `gumloop_auth_url` is returned for an auth prompt. That downstream consequence is not derivable from annotations. The trailing 'Read operation' merely restates readOnlyHint.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded, then the edge-case behavior. No filler, though the 'Read operation' tail is redundant with annotations and slightly dilutes the efficiency.

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 output schema, the description carries responsibility for return semantics and does so by explaining the empty-tools/auth-url case. It is complete enough for a listing tool, missing only explicit routing guidance to sibling tools.

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 account, team_id, and server_id are fully described in the schema; baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: 'Return the tools exposed by an MCP server.' This distinguishes it from siblings like list_mcp_server_prompts and list_mcp_server_resources. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, leaving differentiation to the reader.

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?

Usage is implied (list tools before calling them) but never stated. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of alternatives such as call_mcp_tools or retrieve_mcp_server. The connected-state caveat gives partial context but not selection guidance.

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