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. 'Test MCP server connectivity' implies a read-only diagnostic operation, but doesn't specify what constitutes a successful test, whether it has side effects, what authentication is required, or what the response format looks like. The description is too minimal for a tool that might return critical connectivity status information.

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 three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary elaboration. For a simple diagnostic tool, this level of brevity is appropriate and efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful connectivity test, what information is returned, or how results should be interpreted. For a diagnostic tool that agents might rely on to determine server availability, more context about expected behavior and output would be valuable.

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 the single optional 'message' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't explain what the echoed message means or how it's used in the connectivity test. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 'Test MCP server connectivity' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('MCP server connectivity'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on build management, project data, and testing by being a connectivity diagnostic tool. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like 'get_server_info' which might also provide connectivity information.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. Given the sibling tools include 'get_server_info', there's no indication whether 'ping' should be used for basic connectivity checks versus more detailed server information retrieval.

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