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. It discloses that the tool checks configuration status without exposing values, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential outcomes (e.g., returns boolean, error states), performance characteristics, or authentication requirements, leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and includes a clarifying parenthetical. Every word serves a purpose with zero waste, 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about what the tool does. However, it lacks details on return format (e.g., what 'check' returns), error handling, or dependencies, which would be helpful given the absence of structured output information.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary param info.

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 specific action ('Check if credentials are configured') and resource ('for this session'), with explicit clarification about what it does not do ('does not expose actual values'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'set-credentials' which configures credentials rather than checking their status.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'this session' and the non-exposure of values, suggesting it's for verification rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like checking credential validity through other means or what happens if credentials are unconfigured.

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