IT Tools MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] information,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what information is returned (e.g., status code meaning, categories, typical usage) or any behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or data sources. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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: 'Get information about HTTP status codes.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., textual descriptions, categories), potential errors, or usage examples. For a lookup tool, this leaves the agent guessing about the output format and behavior, which is inadequate for reliable operation.

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 the 'code' parameter documented as 'HTTP status code to look up (optional).' The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as valid code ranges (e.g., 100-599) or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Get information about HTTP status codes.' It specifies the verb ('Get information about') and resource ('HTTP status codes'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'lookup_mime_types' or 'lookup_port_numbers' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect 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 context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it's for educational purposes, debugging, or API responses. With many sibling tools for lookups and conversions, the lack of comparative guidance is a significant gap.

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