get_mcp_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states the operation returns a full record with specific fields. It does not mention any side effects, but being a read operation, this is sufficient. More explicit read-only indication would improve it.

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 concise, front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, and uses a structured docstring format. Every sentence adds value: purpose, args, returns, and usage guidance.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return fields and usage context. It could improve by noting that slug comes from search results, but it is largely complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'slug'. The description only restates 'slug: MCP server slug' in the Args section, adding no semantic meaning beyond the parameter name. For a low-coverage schema, the description should explain what a slug is or how to obtain it.

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 specifically states 'Get complete details for a specific MCP server', clearly identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like search_mcp_servers and get_mcp_install_config by focusing on comprehensive server details.

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 explicitly guides when to use: 'Use this when the user wants to learn more about a specific MCP before installing, or when they ask...'. This provides clear context and contrasts with sibling search tools.

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