mcp_proxy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states it forwards requests and returns results, but fails to disclose significant behaviors like the ability to execute arbitrary server commands, potential security risks, or side effects. No warnings are given about untrusted commands or timeout behavior.

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 concise sentences, immediately stating the purpose with a verb and resource, and includes no filler or redundant details.

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 complex proxy tool with 5 parameters and nested objects, the description is too sparse. It omits return format, timeout behavior, security considerations, and error handling, which are critical for such a powerful tool. The schema covers parameters but not overall usage context.

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 coverage is 100%, with all 5 parameters described and examples provided. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond mentioning support for stdio servers, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verbs: it forwards requests to other MCP servers and returns results. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a generic proxy for any MCP stdio server, while siblings are specific local operations like read_file or write_file.

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 context for when to use the tool: calling tools from other MCP servers, with support for any MCP stdio server. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as using local read_file for filesystem operations. The use case is implied rather than contrasted.

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