Show MCP capabilities

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

Annotations already mark it readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable transparency about what the tool will surface, including automatic-undo behavior and deprecated aliases, which is behavior-relevant context. Nothing in the description contradicts the annotations.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists exactly what will be described. It avoids repetition and contains no filler.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema introspection tool, the description is complete: it tells an agent exactly what information the call will yield. No additional operational detail is needed to invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to add beyond the empty schema. Schema description coverage is 100% because the schema has no properties.

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 uses a specific verb ('Describe') with a clear resource ('this Nuvio MCP server') and enumerates the exact facets it covers: backend, transport, undo behavior, canonical tool list, and deprecated aliases. It is easily distinguished from the sibling operational tools, which all perform concrete data or setup operations.

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 intended use is implied: it is the meta-discovery tool for the server, contrasting with the operational siblings. However, it does not explicitly say when to use it (e.g., before calling other tools) or when not to use it, and there are no exclusions or named alternatives.

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