ZenML MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions default sorting by creation date in descending order, which is useful, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how pagination works beyond basic parameters, or what the output format looks like (though an output schema exists). For a list operation with 7 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized: it starts with the core purpose, adds a key behavioral note (default sorting), and then lists parameters. There's no redundant information, and each sentence serves a clear purpose. It could be slightly more concise by integrating parameter details more seamlessly, but it's efficient overall.

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's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks usage guidelines, detailed behavioral context, and explanations of parameter semantics. The output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but other gaps remain significant for effective agent use.

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 includes an 'Args' section listing all 7 parameters with brief labels, but schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no additional documentation. The description adds basic semantic context (e.g., 'page: The page number to return'), but it doesn't explain parameter interactions, expected formats (e.g., date strings for 'created'), or valid values for fields like 'logical_operator'. This partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves significant gaps.

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 stacks in the ZenML workspace.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('stacks in the ZenML workspace'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_stack' or 'list_stack_components', which would be needed for 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_stack' (for retrieving a single stack) or 'list_stack_components', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This leaves the agent without clear decision-making criteria.

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