Scenario.com MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get workflow by ID' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if the ID doesn't exist (e.g., error handling), or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 at just three words ('Get workflow by ID'), with zero wasted verbiage. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness in other dimensions.

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 a 'workflow' represents in this system, what data is returned, or any behavioral constraints. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools (e.g., workflow runs, posts, puts), more context is needed for the agent to use this tool effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'workflowId' clearly documented as 'The workflow ID to retrieve'. The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., format examples, ID sourcing), so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get workflow by ID' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get-workflows-by-workflow-id' without adding meaningful clarification. While it correctly identifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('workflow'), it doesn't specify what 'workflow' means in this context or what information is retrieved, making it minimally informative beyond the obvious.

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. Given the sibling tools include 'get-workflows' (which likely lists workflows) and 'delete-workflows-by-workflow-id' (which deletes by ID), there's no indication of when this retrieval-by-ID tool is appropriate versus those other options, leaving the agent without contextual usage direction.

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