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. It states this is a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination handling (implied by 'paginationToken' in schema but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the snapshots contain. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key information ('List snapshots') and specifies the resource type clearly, making it easy 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what snapshots are, their format, or how pagination works (implied by parameters but not described). For a tool with no structured behavioral data, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it correctly beyond basic parameter passing.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'snapshots' entail or how 'assetId' relates to canvas assets. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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 clearly states the action ('List snapshots') and resource ('of a canvas type asset'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-assets-by-asset-id' or 'get-assets', which might also retrieve asset-related data, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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 many sibling tools like 'get-assets-by-asset-id' that might retrieve asset details, there's no indication of when snapshots are needed over other asset data, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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