atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns 'available status transitions' and specifies the return format ('JSON string representing a list'), which provides useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention potential behaviors like empty lists for terminal statuses, authentication requirements, or rate limits, leaving some gaps in behavioral understanding.

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. However, the 'ctx' parameter in Args is redundant as it's a standard FastMCP context not needing documentation, and the Returns section could be more concise by integrating with the purpose statement.

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 low complexity (single parameter), high schema coverage, presence of output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and the return format, though it could better integrate with sibling tools (e.g., linking to 'jira_transition_issue') and mention authentication dependencies.

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 description, pattern, and type. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid issue keys or context about Jira project keys. This meets the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 available status transitions') and resource ('for a Jira issue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'jira_transition_issue' (which performs transitions) and 'jira_get_issue' (which retrieves issue details), establishing a unique role in the Jira toolset.

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 to know possible status changes for a Jira issue, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify that this should be used before 'jira_transition_issue' to check available transitions, nor does it mention prerequisites like issue existence or authentication context from 'atlassian_login'.

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