TeamCity 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 'analyze and report', suggesting a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, how it handles errors, what the output format is, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential complexity.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Analyze and report build problems and failures'. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be more informative. It earns a high score for brevity but loses a point for under-specification.

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 potential complexity (analyzing build problems), no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'analyze' entails, what 'report' returns, or how it differs from sibling tools, making it inadequate 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'buildId' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what constitutes a valid 'buildId' or how analysis is performed. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Analyze and report build problems and failures' states the tool's purpose with a clear verb ('analyze and report') and resource ('build problems and failures'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'list_problems' or 'list_problem_occurrences'. It provides a basic understanding but lacks specificity.

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 such as 'list_problems' or 'get_build_status'. The description implies usage for analyzing specific builds but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts, leaving the agent without direction.

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