federation_list_servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it specifies that environment-variable values are never returned (only names), that unratified servers are excluded, and that ratification is a prerequisite for connecting. These details inform the agent about the tool's safety and scope without contradicting 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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core listing purpose and field details, then adds the key exclusion and a pointer to the relevant sibling. Each sentence earns its place, and the structure is scannable and efficient.

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?

The description thoroughly covers the output contents, exclusions, and the relationship to federation_discover, which is strong given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety. The one significant gap is the lack of any guidance on the required app_id parameter, which an agent must know to call the tool. This prevents a perfect score but is otherwise 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter app_id, so the description must compensate. It does not mention app_id at all, leaving ambiguity about what the identifier refers to (e.g., which federation or app context). The schema only provides a vague title ('App Id'), so the agent lacks essential information to correctly set this parameter. The description adds no semantic value here.

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 ('List'), a precise resource ('operator-ratified downstream MCP server'), and details the exact fields returned (id, name, launch command/args, env var names, ratifier, date). It also explicitly states what it never includes, distinguishing it from federation_discover and other listing tools. This gives an agent a clear, unambiguous understanding of the tool's function.

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 contrasts itself with federation_discover by stating that unratified servers are never included and that connecting requires ratification first, with a direct pointer to the alternative. This gives the agent a clear rule for when to use this tool versus the sibling, leaving no room for inference.

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