ZenML MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic retrieval action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., if connector not found), rate limits, response format, or whether it's idempotent. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with mutation potential in its name.

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 concise with two sentences: a clear purpose statement and parameter explanation. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the 'Args:' section formatting is slightly redundant with the schema but still efficient.

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, the description adequately explains the parameter but lacks behavioral context. The existence of an output schema helps, but for a retrieval tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention error cases or relationship to 'list_service_connectors' for 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?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'name_id_or_prefix', explaining it accepts name, ID, or prefix values. With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this adequately compensates by clarifying the parameter's flexible input semantics beyond the basic schema type.

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 'service connector', specifying it retrieves by name, ID, or prefix. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_service_connectors' by focusing on single retrieval rather than listing, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling for full differentiation.

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 like 'list_service_connectors' or other get_* tools. The description implies usage for retrieving a single connector but doesn't specify prerequisites, error conditions, or contextual alternatives.

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