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. 'List all public models' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'public' entails (e.g., visibility constraints). For a tool with 12 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 ('List all public models') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination, filtering logic, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a list operation with extensive filtering options, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 detailed parameter documentation in the input schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond implying a listing action. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the well-documented parameters.

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 'List all public models' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('public models'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-models' or 'get-public-models-by-model-id', which would require specifying that this tool retrieves all public models rather than filtering by ID or other criteria.

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 like 'get-models' and 'get-public-models-by-model-id' available, the agent has no indication whether this tool is for bulk retrieval, filtered queries, or specific use cases, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.

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