IT Tools MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, indicating this is not a read-only operation, but the description doesn't add significant behavioral context beyond that. It implies a transformation (formatting/prettifying) but doesn't detail side effects, error handling, or performance considerations. With annotations covering the read/write aspect, the description adds minimal value, earning a baseline score.

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 'Format and prettify XML' is extremely concise—just three words—and front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 formatting tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format, error cases, or usage nuances. Given the straightforward nature and good schema coverage, it's adequate but leaves room for improvement in contextual guidance.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('xml' and 'indent'). The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic details beyond what the schema already provides, such as formatting rules or examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Format and prettify XML' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('format and prettify') and resource ('XML'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'format_json' or 'format_html', 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. It doesn't mention any specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it refer to sibling tools for comparison. This leaves the agent with minimal usage direction beyond the basic purpose.

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