IT Tools MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, suggesting potential side effects, but the description doesn't clarify what those might be (e.g., if it logs data or affects state). It also lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or output behavior. While annotations provide basic safety info, the description adds little beyond the obvious action, missing opportunities to disclose behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise—a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core functionality without any wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states the action but lacks context on output format (e.g., matches, groups, or boolean result), error handling, or examples. While annotations cover basic read/write hints, more behavioral context would improve completeness for effective tool invocation.

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 'pattern', 'text', and 'flags'. The description doesn't add any meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as explaining regex syntax or flag usage. Given the high coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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: 'Test regular expressions against text'. It specifies the verb ('test') and the resource ('regular expressions'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'grep' or 'search_emoji', which might have overlapping text-processing functions.

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 sibling tools like 'grep' (which also uses regex patterns) or 'compare_text', nor does it specify contexts where this tool is preferred or excluded. This leaves the agent with minimal usage direction.

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