Trackings MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It mentions filtering by project or scan, but doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, sorting), or any limitations like rate limits. This leaves the agent guessing about key operational traits.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('List scan runs') and adds necessary detail ('by project or scan'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly and accurately.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a list operation. It doesn't cover return format, pagination, error handling, or how filtering works with the parameters. For a tool with two parameters and siblings like 'get_scan_run', more context is needed to guide effective use.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('project_id' and 'project_scan_id') adequately. The description adds marginal value by implying these are used for filtering ('by project or scan'), but doesn't explain semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as how they interact or if both can be used together.

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 ('List') and resource ('scan runs'), specifying they can be filtered 'by project or scan'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_projects' or 'list_scans' by focusing on runs. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_scan_run' (singular) or 'trigger_scan_run', leaving some ambiguity.

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. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used for browsing runs versus 'get_scan_run' for detailed single-run info, or 'list_scans' for scan metadata. The description implies filtering but offers no context on prerequisites or typical use cases.

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