mcp_add_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Add a new MCP server configuration' without disclosing important behaviors: whether it overwrites existing configurations, validates the configuration, or starts the server. This lack of transparency is a significant gap for a registration tool.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the action. Every word is necessary, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat sparse. It explains the purpose but omits return values, error conditions, or lifecycle details. The schema is self-documenting for parameters, but the overall context is minimally adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the tool's purpose. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Add a new MCP server configuration' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting that registered servers can be invoked via mcp_invoke, contrasting with removal (mcp_remove_server) and listing (mcp_list_servers).

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 explains when to use the tool: 'Use this to register MCP servers that can then be invoked via mcp_invoke.' It provides clear context for usage, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like mcp_list_servers or mcp_remove_server.

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