ZenML MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the deprecated status and suggests an alternative, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose and deprecation warning, followed by parameter details. Every sentence adds value—no wasted words—and it efficiently communicates critical information in a compact form.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values) and low complexity, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, deprecation, usage guidance, and parameter semantics. However, with no annotations and only basic parameter explanation, it could improve by adding more behavioral context like error cases or permissions.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the parameter 'name_id_or_prefix' as 'The name, ID or prefix of the run template to retrieve.' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, clarifying what the parameter accepts, though it could provide more detail on format or examples.

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 specific action ('Get a run template for a pipeline') with the resource ('run template'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_snapshot' by explicitly noting the deprecated nature and modern alternative. It provides a verb+resource combination that is precise and unambiguous.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance by stating '⚠️ DEPRECATED: Run Templates are deprecated in ZenML. Use `get_snapshot` instead.' It names the alternative tool ('get_snapshot') and explains why it should be preferred, offering clear when-not-to-use and alternative recommendations.

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