TeamCity MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action 'List branches' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety, output format, and usage context, which are crucial for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional assumptions.

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 both parameters (projectId and buildTypeId). The description adds minimal value by implying these parameters are used for filtering branches by project or build configuration, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples beyond what the schema provides.

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 'List' and the resource 'branches', specifying the scope as 'for a project or build configuration'. It distinguishes from siblings like list_builds or list_projects by focusing on branches. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like list_build_configs or list_changes, which might overlap in context.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_builds or list_changes. The description implies usage for listing branches but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or when other tools might be more appropriate, such as for detailed branch information versus just listing.

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