atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about pagination ('limit', 'start_at') and the return format ('JSON string representing the search results including pagination info'), which is valuable beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 in the first sentence, followed by structured sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the 'ctx' parameter in 'Args' is generic and could be omitted for brevity without losing clarity.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, read-only operation), the description covers the basic purpose, parameters, and return format. With annotations indicating read-only safety and an output schema implied by 'Returns', it's mostly complete. However, it lacks details on authentication, error handling, or sibling tool differentiation, which would enhance completeness for an agent.

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 clear documentation for 'project_key', 'limit', and 'start_at'. The description lists parameters but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain Jira project key conventions or pagination behavior in more detail). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Get all issues for a specific Jira project' which provides a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('issues for a specific Jira project'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'jira_get_issue' (single issue) or 'jira_search' (general search), though the project-specific focus is implied.

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 like 'jira_search' or 'jira_get_board_issues'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication via 'atlassian_login'), nor does it specify use cases or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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