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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get the details of an asset,' which implies a read-only operation, but does not cover aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' include (e.g., metadata, file info). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, direct sentence: 'Get the details of an asset.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'details' entail in the response, how errors are handled, or any behavioral traits like side effects. For a tool that retrieves asset data, more context on the return format and operational constraints is needed to be fully helpful.

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, clearly documenting all three parameters (assetId, withEmbedding, originalAssets). The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the implications of including embeddings or returning original assets. Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but offers no extra value.

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 'Get the details of an asset' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('asset'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get-assets' (which likely lists multiple assets) or 'get-public-assets-by-asset-id' (which might retrieve public assets), leaving room for ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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. For example, it does not mention when to choose this over 'get-assets' (for a single asset vs. multiple) or 'get-public-assets-by-asset-id' (for public vs. private assets), nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context unclear.

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