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 mentions retrieving 'status and url', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's idempotent. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with asynchronous batch processes.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating status and URL retrieval aspects.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the status values mean, the format of the URL, error conditions, or how this tool integrates with siblings like 'post-download-assets'. For a tool dealing with batch operations, more context is needed.

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 single parameter 'jobId' documented as 'The job ID to retrieve the download request'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or source context. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the parameter.

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 ('Retrieve') and the target ('status and the url of a batch download assets request'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-assets' or 'post-download-assets', which handle different aspects of asset management.

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., needing a job ID from 'post-download-assets'), exclusions, or how it fits into the workflow with other tools like 'get-job-id' or 'get-jobs'.

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