ZenML 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. It states the tool retrieves a run step but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens with invalid inputs. The mention of retrieving by 'name, ID, or prefix' adds some context beyond basic retrieval, but significant gaps remain for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 brief with two sentences: first states purpose and retrieval methods, second documents the single parameter. No wasted words, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter info more seamlessly.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but lacks behavioral context needed for a retrieval tool. The output schema reduces the burden to explain return values, but more guidance on usage and error cases would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the parameter name 'step_run_id' and clarifies it's for retrieval, but doesn't explain format, validation rules, or the 'name, ID, or prefix' distinction mentioned in the first sentence. The description provides basic mapping but insufficient detail for a parameter with no schema documentation.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'run step', specifying retrieval by name, ID, or prefix. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_run_steps' by focusing on single-item retrieval rather than listing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other get_* tools like 'get_pipeline_run' or 'get_step_logs'.

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 implies usage when you need a specific run step rather than a list, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like 'list_run_steps' or other get_* tools. No guidance on prerequisites, error conditions, or when-not-to-use scenarios is provided.

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