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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information,' but doesn't specify what details are included, whether it's a read-only operation, potential error conditions, or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely queries user data.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise parameter explanation. There's no wasted text, and the structure efficiently communicates essential information in minimal space.

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 should define the return structure), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a user retrieval tool with no annotations, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or error handling. The parameter semantics are well-covered, but overall completeness is adequate with clear room for improvement.

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: The name, ID or prefix of the user to retrieve.' This clarifies that the parameter accepts multiple identifier types (name, ID, or prefix), which is valuable semantic information beyond the schema's basic string type. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensation is effective.

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: 'Get detailed information about a specific user.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('user'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_users' or 'get_active_user', which would require a 5.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_users' (for listing all users) or 'get_active_user' (which might retrieve the current user), leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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