ZenML 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. It states the tool retrieves information (implying a read-only operation) but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' entails. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The two-sentence structure is front-loaded with the main functionality, and the parameter details are concise yet informative. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more polished.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., authentication, errors) and doesn't leverage the output schema to describe return values. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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 description adds meaningful context for both parameters beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). It explains that 'name_id_or_prefix' accepts multiple identifier types and clarifies that 'hydrate' controls whether additional details are included in the response. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific project'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_projects' or 'get_active_project', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect score.

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 like 'list_projects' (for listing multiple projects) or 'get_active_project' (for retrieving the currently active project). It lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage patterns.

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