IT Tools MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, indicating this is a mutation tool, which aligns with 'format and beautify' implying transformation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it doesn't mention whether the operation is idempotent, if it preserves semantic meaning, or any performance characteristics. With annotations covering the mutation aspect, this earns a baseline score for adding some value but not rich behavioral details.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('format and beautify') and resource ('HTML code'), making it immediately scannable and easy to understand without unnecessary elaboration.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, annotations present), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral nuances, or output expectations. With annotations providing some safety context and schema covering parameters, it's minimally viable but could be more complete for a mutation tool.

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%, with clear documentation for both parameters ('html' and 'indentSize'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of HTML input or details on indentation behavior. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb ('format and beautify') and resource ('HTML code'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'format_css', 'format_json', or 'format_xml' which perform similar formatting operations on different data types, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to choose this over other formatting tools like 'format_json' or 'format_xml', nor any context about prerequisites or limitations. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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