IT Tools MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (implying mutation), but the description adds minimal behavioral context. 'Format and prettify' suggests transformation of input YAML, which aligns with the mutation hint. However, the description doesn't disclose what 'prettify' entails (indentation, sorting, etc.), error handling, or output characteristics. With annotations covering the mutation aspect, this earns a baseline 3.

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 extremely concise ('Format and prettify YAML')—just four words that directly convey the core function. There's zero wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the essential action. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.

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 single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, the description doesn't explain what the formatted YAML looks like (e.g., standard indentation, sorted keys). The lack of usage guidelines and limited behavioral transparency leaves gaps for the agent to infer.

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 one parameter ('yaml') fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples of valid YAML, no constraints on content). Given high schema coverage, the 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 YAML' clearly states the verb ('format and prettify') and resource ('YAML'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like format_json or format_xml by specifying YAML, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other YAML-related tools (none exist in the sibling list).

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 prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other formatting tools, or any context about input requirements beyond what's in the schema. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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