atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with this by using 'Get' (non-destructive). It adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the API used ('new Jira Forms REST API'), notes that form IDs are UUIDs, and mentions the return format (JSON string) and error handling. This compensates well for the lack of other annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, technical details, and sections for Args and Returns. It's appropriately sized, but the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections slightly duplicate information that could be inferred from structured fields, making it slightly less efficient than ideal.

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 parameter, read-only, with output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, API context, return format, and error handling. However, it lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs, which could be relevant for a robust implementation.

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 the schema fully documenting the 'issue_key' parameter (including an example). The description adds minimal value beyond this, only restating the parameter name without providing additional semantics or usage context. 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'ProForma forms associated with a Jira issue,' making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'jira_get_proforma_form_details' (singular vs. plural forms), which would be needed for 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 implies usage when needing forms for a specific issue, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'jira_get_proforma_form_details' (which likely gets details for a specific form). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to other form-related tools.

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