atlassian-browser-mcp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It specifies platform limitations (Server/DC only, not Cloud), describes the return format ('JSON string with queue list and pagination metadata'), and mentions error behavior. While annotations cover safety, the description provides operational constraints that help the agent use the tool correctly.

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 uses only essential sentences. However, the 'Args:' section slightly duplicates schema information, and the opening sentence could be more front-loaded with the platform limitation. Overall efficient but with minor room for improvement.

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, 100% schema coverage, readOnlyHint annotation, and existence of an output schema, the description provides complete contextual information. It covers purpose, platform constraints, parameters, return format, and error conditions—everything needed for proper tool selection and invocation without redundancy.

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 all parameters. The description lists parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'queues' are or how they're used). The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter documentation.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('queues for a Jira Service Desk'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'jira_get_queue_issues' or 'jira_get_service_desk_for_project' which target different resources. The title reinforces this clarity without being tautological.

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 usage guidelines by stating 'Server/Data Center only. Not available on Jira Cloud' and specifying the error condition ('Raises: NotImplementedError: If connected to Jira Cloud'). This clearly defines when NOT to use this tool, which is crucial for avoiding runtime errors.

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