yaaif_mcp_server_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Get' but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it contacts the external MCP server directly for live tools or returns cached data, or what failure modes might occur. This is a significant gap for a tool managing external resources.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the object without any filler or repetition. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core behavior.

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?

Although the tool is simple, the complete absence of annotations, an output schema, and property descriptions means the description must provide enough context for correct invocation. It misses key details such as how to obtain a valid server_id, whether a live remote call is made, and whether any state changes occur, leaving an agent underinformed.

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?

The input schema defines only server_id as a bare string with no property description, and schema coverage is 0%. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail: it does not explain the ID format, where to find it, or whether it is a UUID or name. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a concrete resource ('one external MCP server (and its tools)'), and a clear qualifier ('by id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like yaaif_mcp_servers_list (which lists servers) and yaaif_mcp_tool_get (which retrieves an individual tool), making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 phrase 'by id' implies the caller needs a known server ID, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over listing servers or refreshing server data. It does not mention alternatives such as yaaif_mcp_servers_list for discovering IDs or yaaif_mcp_server_refresh for stale data, so usage context is only weakly implied.

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