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 states what data is returned but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, or error conditions. For a server info tool, this leaves gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 purpose and specifies the returned data. There is no wasted text, and it's structured to immediately convey the tool's function without 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or response format. For a simple read operation, this might suffice, but it doesn't provide a complete picture for optimal 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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it could theoretically mention if any implicit parameters (like authentication) are required. Since zero parameters is straightforward, a baseline of 4 is justified.

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 ('Get') and resource ('TeamCity server info'), specifying the data returned (version, build number, state). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on server metadata rather than builds, projects, or other entities. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'ping' (which might check server availability), keeping it from 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 implies usage for retrieving server metadata, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ping' for health checks or other 'get_' tools for specific data. It lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, relying on the agent to infer from the purpose.

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