get_server_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It mentions file creation and @-referencing, implying a read-only generation operation. However, it does not specify whether the file is overwritten, or if there are any side effects or permissions needed. This is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy. The key information (what it does, output file, usage benefit) is front-loaded and clear. Every word adds value.

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 tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the output and use case. However, it could mention the purpose of parameters (e.g., outputPath) or typical usage patterns to improve 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic beyond the schema, only general context. The parameters are well-documented in the schema, so the description does not need to elaborate.

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 generates a comprehensive context file showing server state, memory, and capabilities. The specific output filename .mcp-server-context.md is mentioned. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_architectural_context or get_conversation_snapshot, which might have overlapping purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description lacks any indication of appropriate scenarios, exclusions, or tips for leveraging the generated file. Sibling tools like get_conversation_snapshot and get_architectural_context suggest overlapping functionality, but no differentiation is offered.

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