List Remote MCP Tools

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 discloses the allowlist constraint and the currently supported profile, which is useful, but omits auth requirements, whether it is a read-only operation, and any rate or scope limits. Adequate but incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. Every sentence earns its place; there is no padding.

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 one-parameter read tool with a fully covered schema and no output schema, the description supplies the key scoping context (allowlist, current profile support). It is largely complete, missing only auth/behavioral notes.

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 the single 'profile' parameter is fully documented in the schema with its current allowed value ('virtuals'). The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 clear verb+resource ('List tools from an allowlisted protocol MCP profile') and names the supported profile. It distinguishes the remote-MCP concept from plain protocol tools only implicitly; it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling list_protocol_tools or call_remote_mcp_tool.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_protocol_tools or call_remote_mcp_tool. The scope note ('Currently supports the Virtuals ACP MCP profile') hints at applicability but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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