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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination support but doesn't describe return format, error conditions, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is too sparse for a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema.

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 at just 5 words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a useful parenthetical about pagination. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'muted tests' are in this context, what the return format looks like, or how to interpret results. The pagination mention is helpful but doesn't compensate for the overall lack of context.

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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond mentioning pagination support, which relates to 'pageSize', 'maxPages', and 'all' parameters but doesn't provide additional context beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('muted tests'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling list tools like 'list_builds' or 'list_projects' beyond the specific resource type, which prevents 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions pagination support but doesn't explain when to use pagination parameters or how this tool relates to other list tools in the server. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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