TeamCity MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions pagination but doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like (text vs. stream implications). The description is insufficient for a tool with 10 parameters and no annotations.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a parenthetical clarification about pagination type.

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 complex tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without trial and error.

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 fully documents all 10 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'pagination (by lines)', which hints at the page/line parameters but doesn't provide additional semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'fetch' and resource 'build log', specifying pagination by lines. It distinguishes from siblings like get_build or get_build_status by focusing on log retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_build (which might include log info) or other log-related tools. The description mentions pagination but doesn't provide context for choosing between page-based or line-based parameters.

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