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. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'public' means in this context. The description is minimal and lacks necessary operational context.

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 extremely concise with just one sentence that directly states the tool's function. While perhaps too minimal, it contains no wasted words and is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'public' means, what details are returned, or how this differs from non-public variants. Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools and lack of structured documentation, 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 'modelId' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 states the tool retrieves details for a given model ID, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from similar sibling tools like 'get-models-by-model-id' or 'get-public-models', leaving ambiguity about what makes this 'public' version different.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple similar tools in the sibling list (get-models-by-model-id, get-public-models, get-models), the description offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or distinctions.

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