Call a namespaced upstream MCP tool

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds valuable detail: 'Destructive tools return a confirm card unless confirm=true and confirm_token matches.' This goes beyond the annotation by explaining the confirmation gate. No contradiction found.

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 two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and add a key behavioral note. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and a sparse description, the tool lacks explanations of parameter structure and return values. The description does not cover how arguments are passed or what the call returns, making it incomplete for reliable 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly references confirm and confirm_token via the confirmation rule, but does not explain server, name, or arguments. An agent cannot infer how to populate these parameters from the description.

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 'Proxy tools/call to an upstream server' which specifies the action and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like nock.resolve or nock.search, so it misses the opportunity to disambiguate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states the generic proxy action, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context for calling vs. resolving, searching, or checking status.

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