Rowan MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Stop') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is destructive (likely yes, but unconfirmed), permission requirements, side effects (e.g., halts computation, may leave partial results), or error conditions (e.g., invalid UUID, already stopped). The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured but somewhat redundant with the schema. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter repetition could be trimmed for efficiency.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is minimally adequate. It states the action and parameter but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and error handling. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them, but overall completeness is limited.

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%, with the parameter 'workflow_uuid' fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the parameter documentation verbatim ('UUID of the running workflow to stop'), adding no additional meaning, syntax, or format details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 the verb ('Stop') and resource ('a running workflow'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'workflow_delete' (which removes) and 'workflow_update' (which modifies). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling workflow tools beyond the core 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., workflow must be running), exclusions (e.g., cannot stop completed workflows), or relationships with siblings like 'workflow_delete' or 'workflow_update'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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