list_mcp_servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context about what MCP servers are, but it does not disclose behavioral details such as how results are ordered, whether pagination applies, or how the status filter affects results. It is consistent with annotations and does not contradict them.

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 only two sentences long, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds concise, relevant context without padding. Every word earns its place and the structure is easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 list operation with 100% schema coverage and no nested objects, the description is largely complete. It identifies the target resource and agent binding, and annotations cover idempotency and safety. It could optionally mention the shape of the returned list, but the tool name and action make that reasonably inferable.

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 both agent_id and status are already documented with clear descriptions and an enum for status. The description does not need to repeat parameter details and adds no extra semantic information beyond the schema. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 specific action ('Lista') and a specific resource ('MCP servers vinculados a um agente'), making it clear that this tool returns the MCP servers associated with a given agent. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_mcp_server (single server) and list_agent_tools (tools, not servers). The added explanation that MCP servers connect agents to external tools reinforces the domain context.

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 implies the main use case: call it to list the MCP servers linked to an agent. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as get_mcp_server for retrieving a single server or create_mcp_server for adding one. The usage context is clear but not contrasted with sibling options.

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