Scenario.com 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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete workflow' implies a destructive mutation, but it fails to specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated resources, or any rate limits. This leaves critical behavioral traits unaddressed for a potentially high-impact operation.

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?

While concise with only two words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks front-loaded critical details and fails to earn its place by providing meaningful context, making it ineffective despite its brevity.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the scope of deletion, potential side effects, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool safely or interpret results.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'workflowId' clearly documented as 'The workflow ID to delete'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as format examples or validation rules. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Delete workflow' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'workflow' means in this context, what resources are affected, or how this differs from other delete operations like 'delete-asset' or 'delete-collections-by-collection-id' among the many sibling tools.

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. With sibling tools including various delete operations (e.g., delete-asset, delete-collections-by-collection-id) and other workflow-related tools (e.g., get-workflows-by-workflow-id, put-workflows-by-workflow-id), there's no indication of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for selection.

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