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 lists pipeline runs but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), how pagination works (though parameters hint at it), what the output format is (though an output schema exists), or any rate limits or permissions required. For a tool with 15 parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate.

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 structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter list, but it's overly verbose due to listing all parameters inline. Each parameter is described in a repetitive format, which adds bulk without enhancing clarity. While front-loaded with the purpose, the parameter section could be more concise or better integrated, making it somewhat inefficient.

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 complexity (15 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination behavior, error handling) and usage guidelines. The output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but overall, it's insufficient for a tool of this complexity without annotations.

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 lists all 15 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'sort_by: The field to sort the pipeline runs by'), adding basic semantics beyond the schema's titles. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., date formats for 'created'), enum values (e.g., for 'status'), or usage examples, leaving gaps. This meets the baseline for adding some value but not fully compensating for the low coverage.

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: 'List all pipeline runs in the ZenML workspace.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('pipeline runs'), and the scope ('in the ZenML workspace') is helpful. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_pipeline_run' (singular) or 'list_pipelines' (pipelines vs runs), which prevents 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_pipeline_run' for retrieving a single run or 'list_pipelines' for listing pipelines themselves. There's no context about prerequisites, such as needing an active workspace or authentication, which is a significant gap.

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