IT Tools MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, indicating it's not a read-only operation (consistent with 'generate'), but the description doesn't add behavioral context beyond that. It doesn't mention side effects, performance, or output format details, though annotations cover the basic safety profile.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and earns its place efficiently.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough for basic understanding but could benefit from mentioning the output format or example usage. It covers the core purpose adequately, though annotations provide limited behavioral context.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all three parameters (markdown, maxLevel, generateAnchors). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating value.

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 specific action ('generate a table of contents') and resource ('from Markdown headers'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'convert_markdown_to_html' or 'format_html' that handle different markdown transformations. It's precise about what it creates and from what source.

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 implies usage when needing a TOC from markdown headers, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like manually creating a TOC or using other markdown processors. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, such as handling malformed markdown.

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