Scenario.com MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Upload' implies a write operation, but the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the upload is public/private, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with 8 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise at just three words. Every word earns its place: 'Upload' specifies the action, 'image or canvas' specifies the resource types. There's no wasted text or unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after upload (e.g., returns an asset ID), doesn't mention authentication or permissions, and doesn't clarify the relationship between image/canvas parameters. The agent lacks critical context for proper tool invocation.

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 88%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description mentions 'image or canvas' which hints at the 'image' and 'canvas' parameters, but doesn't add meaningful context beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description adds minimal value.

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 'Upload an image or canvas' clearly states the verb (upload) and resource (image/canvas), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'post-uploads' or 'post-asset-get-bulk' that might also handle uploads, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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 many sibling tools including 'post-uploads' and various inference tools, there's no indication of whether this is for general asset uploads, specific formats, or particular workflows. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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