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. 'Add models' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, what happens on duplicate model IDs, if it's idempotent, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe invocation.

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 zero waste. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical information about behavior, error handling, and output format, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 50% (only 'collectionId' has a description). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain the format of 'collectionId' or 'modelIds', constraints, or examples. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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 clearly states the action ('Add models') and target resource ('to a specific collection'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from deletion tools but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar 'put' operations like 'put-models-by-model-id' or 'put-assets-by-collection-id'.

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. While the name implies it's for adding models to collections, there's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or comparison to sibling tools like 'post-models' or 'put-collections-by-collection-id'.

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