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 mentions 'supports pagination' which is valuable context about how results are returned, but doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, what data is included in listings, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds some behavioral insight but leaves significant 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 - just 6 words - and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place: 'List' (action), 'TeamCity builds' (resource), and 'supports pagination' (key behavioral trait). There's 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 list tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It mentions pagination (important for a list operation) but doesn't explain return format, authentication needs, or how to interpret results. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to help an agent understand what to expect from this tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 resource ('TeamCity builds'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other list tools in the sibling set like 'list_build_configs' or 'list_projects' beyond specifying it's for builds specifically.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (like 'get_build' for single builds or 'list_build_configs' for configurations), there's no indication of when this paginated list is appropriate versus other listing or retrieval tools.

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