IT Tools MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint: false, which is somewhat contradictory for a 'list' operation that typically doesn't modify state. The description doesn't clarify this ambiguity or add behavioral context like output format, refresh behavior, or permission requirements. It neither contradicts nor meaningfully supplements the annotations.

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 perfectly concise at three words, front-loading the essential action and resource. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text, making it immediately scannable and understandable.

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 listing tool with no parameters and basic annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain what the listing returns (e.g., process IDs, names, resource usage), and the readOnlyHint: false annotation creates ambiguity that isn't addressed.

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 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the description appropriately doesn't need to explain parameters. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, as there's no parameter information to add beyond what's already covered by the empty schema.

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 'List running processes' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('running processes'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from sibling tools like 'top' or 'system_info', but the scope is well-defined for a process listing tool.

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 like 'top' (which also shows processes) or 'system_info' (which provides broader system information). There's no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools.

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