mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Model Context Protocol (MCP) Tool Descriptions Are Smelly! Towards Improving AI Agent Efficiency with Augmented MCP Tool Descriptions

arXiv 2602.14878 ↗First posted 16 Feb 2026cs.SE cs.ETcited by 15

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Tool learning and function calling

Abstract (arXiv)

The Model Context Protocol (MCP) introduces a standard specification that defines how Foundation Model (FM)-based agents should interact with external systems by invoking tools. However, to understand a tool's purpose and features, FMs rely on natural-language tool descriptions, making these descriptions a critical component in guiding FMs to select the optimal tool for a given (sub)task and to pass the right arguments to the tool. While defects or smells in these descriptions can misguide FM-based agents, their prevalence and consequences in the MCP ecosystem remain unclear. Hence, we examine 856 tools spread across 103 MCP servers empirically, assess their description quality, and their impact on agent performance. We identify six components of tool descriptions from the literature, develop a scoring rubric utilizing these components, and then formalize tool description smells based on this rubric. By operationalizing this rubric through an FM-based scanner, we find that 97.1% of the analyzed tool descriptions contain at least one smell, with 56% failing to state their purpose clearly. While augmenting these descriptions for all components improves task success rates by a median of 5.85 percentage points and improves partial goal completion by 15.12%, it also increases the number of execution steps by 67.46% and regresses performance in 16.67% of cases. These results indicate that achieving performance gains is not straightforward; while execution cost can act as a trade-off, execution context can also impact. Furthermore, component ablations show that compact variants of different component combinations often preserve behavioral reliability while reducing unnecessary token overhead, enabling more efficient use of the FM context window and lower execution costs.

Key facts. Cited by 15 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Tool learning and function calling, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 46 of its 123 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Feb 2026.

Builds on

46 of 123 references.

Closest ancestors · 7

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Model Context Protocols in Adaptive Transport Systems: A Survey26 Aug
  2. 2025MCP-Universe: Benchmarking Large Language Models with Real-World Model Context Protocol Servers20 Aug
  3. 2025LiveMCPBench: Can Agents Navigate an Ocean of MCP Tools?3 Aug
  4. 2025MCPEval: Automatic MCP-based Deep Evaluation for AI Agent Models17 Jul
  5. 2025MCP-Zero: Active Tool Discovery for Autonomous LLM Agents1 Jun
  6. 2025ComplexFuncBench: Exploring Multi-Step and Constrained Function Calling under Long-Context Scenario17 Jan
  7. 2023ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIs31 Jul

Other references · 39

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  2. 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,050
  3. 2023DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelinescited by 803
  4. 2025GEPA: Reflective Prompt Evolution Can Outperform Reinforcement Learningcited by 449
  5. 2024Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Modelscited by 301
  6. 2024Optimizing Instructions and Demonstrations for Multi-Stage Language Model Programscited by 270
  7. 2024LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Taskscited by 236
  8. 2024AI Agents That Mattercited by 199
  9. 2025Prompt Injection Attack to Tool Selection in LLM Agentscited by 145
  10. 2025Can LLMs Replace Human Evaluators? An Empirical Study of LLM-as-a-Judge in Software Engineeringcited by 64
  11. 2025Model Context Protocol (MCP) at First Glance: Studying the Security and Maintainability of MCP Serverscited by 62
  12. 2025A Survey of LLM-based Deep Search Agents: Paradigm, Optimization, Evaluation, and Challengescited by 58
27 more
  1. 2019On Learning Meaningful Code Changes via Neural Machine Translationcited by 50
  2. 2025From Web Search towards Agentic Deep Research: Incentivizing Search with Reasoning Agentscited by 49
  3. 2023Did You Read the Instructions? Rethinking the Effectiveness of Task Definitions in Instruction Learningcited by 40
  4. 2024Prompt Optimization with EASE? Efficient Ordering-aware Automated Selection of Exemplarscited by 37
  5. 2025MCPWorld: A Unified Benchmarking Testbed for API, GUI, and Hybrid Computer Use Agentscited by 37
  6. 2025What Prompts Don't Say: Understanding and Managing Underspecification in LLM Promptscited by 32
  7. 2025MPMA: Preference Manipulation Attack Against Model Context Protocolcited by 31
  8. 2025MCPToolBench++: A Large Scale AI Agent Model Context Protocol MCP Tool Use Benchmarkcited by 30
  9. 2025Rubric Is All You Need: Enhancing LLM-based Code Evaluation With Question-Specific Rubricscited by 29
  10. 2024MAPO: Boosting Large Language Model Performance with Model-Adaptive Prompt Optimizationcited by 20
  11. 2020Code Smells and Refactoring: A Tertiary Systematic Review of Challenges and Observationscited by 18
  12. 2024Specifications: The missing link to making the development of LLM systems an engineering disciplinecited by 17
  13. 2023A Large Language Model Approach to Educational Survey Feedback Analysiscited by 14
  14. 2025Survey of LLM Agent Communication with MCP: A Software Design Pattern Centric Reviewcited by 14
  15. 2025An Empirical Study of Testing Practices in Open Source AI Agent Frameworks and Agentic Applicationscited by 14
  16. 2016Rapid quality assurance with Requirements Smellscited by 11
  17. 2025Investigating The Smells of LLM Generated Codecited by 9
  18. 2024On the Workflows and Smells of Leaderboard Operations (LBOps): An Exploratory Study of Foundation Model Leaderboardscited by 6
  19. 2024Evaluating Large Language Models in Detecting Test Smellscited by 6
  20. 2025Benchmarking LLM for Code Smells Detection: OpenAI GPT-4.0 vs DeepSeek-V3cited by 5
  21. 2025Enhancing Clinical Decision Support and EHR Insights through LLMs and the Model Context Protocol: An Open-Source MCP-FHIR Frameworkcited by 5
  22. 2024Prompt Smells: An Omen for Undesirable Generative AI Outputscited by 4
  23. 2025On the Impact of Requirements Smells in Prompts: The Case of Automated Traceabilitycited by 4
  24. 2024Copilot-in-the-Loop: Fixing Code Smells in Copilot-Generated Python Code using Copilotcited by 2
  25. 2024On the Diffusion of Test Smells in LLM-Generated Unit Testscited by 2
  26. 2025BioinfoMCP: A Unified Platform Enabling MCP Interfaces in Agentic Bioinformaticscited by 2
  27. 2025Model Context Protocol for Vision Systems: Audit, Security, and Protocol Extensionscited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 15.

15 papers.

Sort:

By area:

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026From Docs to Descriptions: Smell-Aware Evaluation of MCP Server Descriptions
  2. 2026Don't believe everything you read: Understanding and Measuring MCP Behavior under Misleading Tool Descriptions
  3. 2025MCP-AgentBench: Evaluating Real-World Language Agent Performance with MCP-Mediated Tools
  4. 2026MCP-Atlas: A Large-Scale Benchmark for Tool-Use Competency with Real MCP Servers
  5. 2025MCP-Bench: Benchmarking Tool-Using LLM Agents with Complex Real-World Tasks via MCP Servers
  6. 2025MCPAgentBench: A Real-world Task Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Agent MCP Tool Use
  7. 2025MCPXKIT: The Unified Toolkit for Analyzing Model Context Protocol Security
  8. 2025OSWorld-MCP: Benchmarking MCP Tool Invocation In Computer-Use Agents