yaaif_mcp_servers_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states only that it lists servers, which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety, mention pagination, or note any side effects. It is not misleading but is minimally informative.

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 directly states the purpose without any fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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?

The tool has two optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides no information about parameter behavior, return format, or pagination. An agent cannot infer how to use 'q' or 'limit' or what the result looks like. The description is too sparse for a tool with this many related siblings and potential ambiguities.

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% and the description does not mention the 'q' or 'limit' parameters at all. Since the schema provides no descriptions and the description adds nothing, an agent has no idea what these parameters control or how to format them.

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 states a clear verb (list) and resource (registered external MCP servers) with a scope (tenant catalog). It distinguishes from siblings like yaaif_mcp_deployments_list (deployments vs servers) and yaaif_mcp_tools_list (tools vs servers) by naming the exact resource type.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are several related list tools (e.g., yaaif_mcp_deployments_list, yaaif_mcp_tools_list) but the description does not mention them or provide any decision criteria.

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