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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List parameters' but does not specify if this is a read-only operation, what the output format might be (e.g., list, JSON), or any limitations like pagination or access requirements. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective use. It does not explain what 'parameters' entail (e.g., configuration settings, environment variables) or the return format, leaving the agent with insufficient context to handle the tool's output or behavioral nuances.

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, with 'buildTypeId' clearly documented as 'Build type ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or context for the parameter. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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 ('List') and the resource ('parameters for a build configuration'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'list_build_configs' or 'get_build_config', which might list configurations rather than parameters, leaving room for ambiguity in sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings such as 'get_build_config' or 'list_build_configs' available, there is no indication of whether this tool is for detailed parameter listing versus general configuration info, or any prerequisites like needing a specific build type ID.

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