mcp_tool_call

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

Without annotations, the description does not disclose safety aspects (e.g., authentication, side effects). It describes the wrapping and return format but lacks details on potential destructiveness or read-only nature. Since it's a generic invoker, behavior depends on the called tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no redundant 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately mentions the return is a raw JSON-RPC response. It does not elaborate on response structure, but for a wrapper tool, this is reasonable. Could mention that response varies by called tool.

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%, and the description adds meaning by explaining that 'name' and 'arguments' are wrapped into a JSON-RPC 2.0 envelope, which provides context beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 it invokes a tool on the hosted MCP server, wrapping into a JSON-RPC envelope, and returns the raw response. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are specific tool implementations, as this is a generic meta-tool.

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 mentions the specific server (mcp.servonaut.dev) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., it's the only way to call tools on that server). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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