opencode_mcp_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose scope ('all MCP servers'), and the word 'status' implies a non-mutating read, but it says nothing about return shape, ordering, or whether a directory-scoped call reports servers configured elsewhere.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler or redundancy. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 simple read-only status query with one optional, fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is being queried. It is slightly thin on how directory scoping affects results, but nothing essential to invoking the tool is missing.

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% and the single optional 'directory' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about how directory selection affects the reported MCP server list.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get the status') and a precise resource ('all MCP servers configured in opencode'), which clearly separates it from the write-side sibling opencode_mcp_add and from the many session/message tools. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no mention of an alternative or a 'use X instead' condition. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer that this is the diagnostic counterpart to opencode_mcp_add.

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