TeamCity MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Trigger a new build' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this queues or starts immediately, requires permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. However, it's under-specified rather than concise, as it lacks necessary details for a mutation tool, slightly reducing its effectiveness.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters (including nested objects), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover return values, error handling, or behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining buildTypeId format or typical property values. 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 'Trigger a new build' states the action (trigger) and resource (build), but is vague about scope and lacks differentiation from siblings like 'cancel_queued_build' or 'list_queued_builds'. It doesn't specify what type of build (e.g., CI/CD, project-specific) or system is involved.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cancel_queued_build' or 'list_queued_builds'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid buildTypeId) or contextual cues for triggering versus monitoring builds.

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