atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies platform limitations (Server/DC only, not Cloud), describes error conditions (raises NotImplementedError for Cloud), and clarifies return values (JSON string with data or null if not found). No contradiction with 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 clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns, Raises) and efficiently conveys essential information. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the Args section could be slightly more concise given the schema coverage.

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, the presence of annotations (readOnlyHint), 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns' documentation), the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, constraints, parameters, return values, and error conditions adequately for agent use.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single parameter (project_key with description, pattern, type). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only mentioning the parameter name without additional semantics. 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 clearly states the specific action ('Get the Jira Service Desk') and resource ('associated with a project key'), with explicit distinction from sibling tools by focusing on service desk retrieval rather than other Jira operations like issue management or project listing. It precisely defines the tool's scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use ('Server/Data Center only') and when not to use ('Not available on Jira Cloud'), with the Raises section reinforcing this constraint. It clearly distinguishes this tool's appropriate deployment context from alternatives.

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