IT Tools MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires permissions, what format the output takes, or any rate limits or side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get') and resource, making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format, usage context, or behavioral traits that would help an agent use it effectively. For a read-only status tool, this is the minimum viable level.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter details, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as no compensation is needed.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current MCP logging configuration and status'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'logging_setLevel' (which presumably sets logging levels rather than retrieving them), 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 the sibling 'logging_setLevel' or any other related tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This leaves the agent without explicit direction on appropriate invocation scenarios.

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