Retrieve an MCP server

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so "Read operation" adds nothing. The genuinely useful addition is the disclosure that the response populates allowed_tool_call_ids with the caller's permitted tool calls — a return-side behavior not covered by annotations or any output schema. It does not mention auth needs, rate limits, or error behavior, so a 3 fits.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the output detail. The trailing "Read operation" is redundant against readOnlyHint and slightly wastes space, but overall the entry is tight and well-ordered.

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 simple single-resource retrieve with 100% schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is nearly enough: it names the resource and one key response field. It omits any mention of the plural-list alternative, which is the main missing piece.

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 account, team_id, and server_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., whether account changes the scoping or what happens when team_id is omitted), 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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Return a single MCP server." The singular "single" implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_mcp_servers, so an agent can route without opening the schema. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling as an alternative, so it earns a 4 rather than 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?

The description gives no when-to-use or when-not guidance and never references the surrounding toolset (list_mcp_servers, list_mcp_server_tools). Retrieval-by-id is implied by the required server_id, but nothing steers an agent between this and the list siblings.

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