IT Tools MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context about what information is returned (system details, tool categories, resource usage) and hints at dynamic discovery ('dynamically discovered' in schema). However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format details beyond what annotations cover.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The example is somewhat redundant but adds mild clarification. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, though the example could be integrated more seamlessly.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers what information is retrieved but lacks details on output structure, error handling, or usage scenarios. With annotations providing safety context, it meets minimum viability but leaves gaps for an agent to infer behavior.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, as it mentions no parameters. However, the example ('Example: system information, tool categories, installation guide') loosely relates to the 'category' parameter but lacks specificity. 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 tool's purpose with specific resources: 'Get comprehensive system information, server details, available tool categories, and resource usage.' It uses a clear verb ('Get') and lists multiple resource types. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, as none appear to be direct alternatives for system information retrieval.

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 includes an example ('Example: system information, tool categories, installation guide'), but this illustrates output rather than usage context. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing, or comparison to other tools.

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