atlassian-browser-mcp

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

The annotations include 'destructiveHint: true', indicating a write operation, which aligns with the description's 'Create' action. The description adds that it returns a 'JSON string of the created version object', providing output context. However, it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling, leaving behavioral gaps despite the annotation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a structured Args/Returns section. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the parameter listing in the description is redundant with the schema and could be trimmed for better conciseness.

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 destructive annotation and output schema, the description covers the essential action and return value. However, it lacks context on permissions, error cases, or how it fits with sibling tools, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool in a complex system like Jira.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., project key pattern, date formats). The description lists parameters but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between dates or naming conventions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Create a new fix version') and resource ('in a Jira project'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'jira_batch_create_versions' or explain what a 'fix version' is specifically, 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'jira_batch_create_versions' or 'jira_create_sprint'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing project access) or typical use cases, offering minimal usage direction.

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