TeamCity MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optional streaming output' which adds some context about output behavior, but fails to address critical aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what happens with large artifacts, error handling, or rate limits. For a download tool with multiple parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise at just 7 words, front-loading the core purpose ('download multiple artifacts') and adding one key behavioral note ('with optional streaming output'). Every word serves a purpose with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens when artifacts are downloaded (file storage, return format, error conditions), doesn't address authentication or permission requirements, and provides minimal guidance on usage. The high parameter count and lack of structured metadata demand more descriptive context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional streaming output' which relates to the 'encoding' parameter's 'stream' option, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 action ('download multiple artifacts') and resource ('artifacts'), which distinguishes it from the singular 'download_build_artifact' sibling tool. However, it doesn't specify what types of artifacts or from what system, leaving some ambiguity about the exact resource scope.

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 mentions 'optional streaming output' which hints at a usage scenario, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'download_build_artifact' (singular) or other build-related tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or comparison to sibling tools.

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