IT Tools MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, which aligns with the description's 'copy' action implying mutation (file transfer). The description adds context by specifying 'using SFTP (SCP-like)', hinting at the protocol and security aspects, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, performance limits, or authentication requirements beyond the schema. With annotations covering the read/write aspect, the description provides moderate additional value.

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 front-loads the core action ('copy files') and method ('using SFTP'). It wastes no words, avoiding redundancy with the schema or annotations. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 complexity (file transfer with multiple parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the high-level action and protocol but omits details like return values, error cases, or security implications. With annotations providing read/write context and schema covering parameters, it's adequate but could benefit from more behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Direction: upload or download'). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. However, it implicitly reinforces the 'direction' parameter by mentioning 'to or from', but this is minimal. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 action ('copy files') and the method ('using SFTP (SCP-like)'), with the target being a remote host. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'ssh' or 'curl' by focusing on file transfer rather than remote execution or HTTP requests. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential file-related siblings (e.g., 'cat', 'grep'), though none are direct alternatives.

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 prerequisites (e.g., SSH access, network connectivity), compare it to similar tools like 'ssh' for file transfers, or specify scenarios where it's preferred (e.g., secure copying over SFTP). Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly contextualized.

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