IT Tools MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which already tells the agent this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying it retrieves a 'reference and cheatsheet', but doesn't elaborate on format, scope, or any limitations. With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value but lacks depth, warranting a baseline score.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly 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 has 0 parameters, annotations provide safety info, and no output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format, scope of reference, or any behavioral nuances. For a simple read tool, this is passable but leaves room for improvement in completeness.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, which is efficient and avoids redundancy. A score of 4 reflects that it handles this well, though not perfect as it could hint at implicit inputs like filtering, but that's not required here.

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 ('Ansible commands reference and cheatsheet'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_docker_reference' or 'show_unicode_names', which follow a similar pattern, 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 any specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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