create_mcp_server

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

Annotations only provide generic hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description carries the burden of behavior. It meaningfully adds transport negotiation details, deprecated SSE behavior, env-var token resolution, and auth/config coupling. It does not cover return values, error cases, or duplicate-name behavior, but the described side effect and constraints are clear.

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 front-loads the core purpose, then uses compact bullet lists for transports, auth/config combinations, and optional config fields. Every section earns its place; there is no filler or repeated schema content.

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 tool with 7 parameters, nested objects, enums, and no output schema, the description covers the difficult parts: transport validity, auth/config invariants, defaults, and termination of legacy SSE. Minor gaps remain around return value, validation failures, and what happens if the agent_id or endpoint is invalid, but the essential invocation guidance is present.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description substantially enriches the schema: it specifies exact config object shapes per auth_method, explains vault_secret_id usage, custom api_key_header, the INTERNAL_TUNNEL_TOKEN env var, timeout defaults, headers, and defaults_from_context. This is precisely the information an agent needs beyond the raw JSON schema.

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?

A description begins with a clear verb and resource: 'Registra um novo MCP server para um agente' and states the consequence: the agent will be able to use the server's exposed tools. This distinguishes it from sibling MCP tools like list_mcp_servers, update_mcp_server, and delete_mcp_server by naming the creation action.

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 gives strong context on when to use each transport and auth option: stdio is 'local, apenas dev', SSE is explicitly deprecated, and tunnel is recommended specifically for MCP servers via Zihin Tunnel. It lacks an explicit pointer to siblings like update_mcp_server for modifying an existing server, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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