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 but only states what information can be retrieved. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), performance characteristics, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when buildId isn't found. The mention of 'extra API call when queued' for two parameters is useful but insufficient for comprehensive transparency.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Get build status') followed by the key optional features. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose but lacks important context about when to use versus alternatives, behavioral constraints, and expected output format. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description itself doesn't compensate for the missing annotations and output schema.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional test/problem and queue context details' which maps to includeTests, includeProblems, includeQueueTotals, and includeQueueReason parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 'Get' and resource 'build status' with additional context about optional details. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_build' or 'get_build_results' by focusing specifically on status retrieval with test/problem/queue context, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 test/problem and queue context details' which implies when to include those parameters, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus similar siblings like 'get_build', 'get_build_results', or 'list_builds'. There's no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives.

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