IT Tools MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, indicating potential side effects, but the description doesn't clarify what those might be (e.g., whether it modifies files or just reads them). It adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—mentioning 'search' implies reading, but doesn't detail output format, error handling, or performance. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 search tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output expectations. Given the straightforward schema and annotations, it's functional but could be more informative to fully guide an agent.

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 descriptions for 'pattern' and 'file'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., regex syntax, file path formats). This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Search for patterns in files' clearly states the verb ('search') and resource ('patterns in files'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from many siblings (e.g., 'analyze_text_stats', 'compare_text') by focusing on pattern matching rather than analysis or conversion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'test_regex', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 when to choose 'grep' over 'test_regex' (a sibling tool) or other text-processing tools like 'analyze_text_stats'. There's no context about prerequisites, file types, or performance considerations.

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