Scenario.com MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'advanced vectorization', lacking details on permissions, side effects (e.g., whether it modifies or creates new assets), rate limits, or output format. For a complex tool with 14 parameters, this is insufficient to inform safe and effective use.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could benefit from more detail. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.

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 (14 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the vectorization process, output format, or behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer usage. A more complete description would address these aspects to complement the rich schema.

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 93%, so the schema provides detailed parameter documentation. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, such as default values or interactions between parameters. However, with high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 'Advanced vectorization of an image' states the general action but lacks specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'vectorization' entails (e.g., converting raster to vector graphics) or differentiate it from siblings like 'post-pixelate-inferences' or 'post-upscale-inferences', which also process images. This is vague and borderline tautological with the tool name.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for image processing (e.g., 'post-pixelate-inferences', 'post-upscale-inferences'), the description fails to indicate scenarios for vectorization over other methods, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for selection.

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