List MCP servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the catalog is scoped to what is visible to the caller and includes connection state, which is useful context. However, it does not add richer behavioral details such as permissions, pagination, or rate-limit 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and remains short. The trailing phrase 'Read operation.' is somewhat redundant because annotations already indicate a read-only operation, but the overall text is appropriately sized and easy to scan.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned: a catalog of MCP servers with connection state. It omits details about the exact return structure or pagination, but the annotations and fully documented parameters carry most of the remaining context.

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%, and both parameters ('account' and 'team_id') are documented in the schema, including the default visibility behavior when team_id is omitted. The description adds no parameter syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Return the catalog of MCP servers.' It also names the three server categories and says the result includes connection state. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_agent_mcp_servers or retrieve_mcp_server, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_agent_mcp_servers, retrieve_mcp_server, or list_mcp_server_tools. The phrase 'visible to the caller' implies a default scope, but no when/when-not conditions or alternative routing are provided.

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