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 hints at handling large result sets, but it doesn't describe authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, structure). For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 very concise with a single sentence 'List VCS changes (supports pagination)', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it could be more structured by explicitly stating the tool's scope or limitations, but it's efficiently written.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or how to interpret results (e.g., what 'VCS changes' entails). For a list tool with rich filtering options, more context is needed to guide effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters (e.g., how 'all' and 'maxPages' work together). 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 states the tool 'List VCS changes' which provides a clear verb ('List') and resource ('VCS changes'), but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_builds' or 'list_branches' beyond mentioning 'changes' specifically. It's adequately clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 'supports pagination' which implies usage for large datasets, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_builds' or 'list_projects', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. No clear when-to-use context is provided.

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