atlassian-browser-mcp

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

The description adds valuable context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying that it returns 'a JSON string representing the Jira user profile object, or an error object if not found' and raises 'ValueError: If the Jira client is not configured or available.' This provides important behavioral details about error conditions and return format that aren't captured in annotations. The description doesn't contradict the readOnlyHint=true annotation.

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 (Args, Returns, Raises) and front-loads the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool. The 'Args:' section could be slightly more concise since it repeats schema information, but overall it's efficient and organized.

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 operation), the presence of output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description provides adequate context. It covers purpose, parameter usage, return values, and error conditions. The main gap is lack of explicit guidance on when to use this vs sibling search tools, but for a straightforward retrieval tool, this is reasonably complete.

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 user_identifier parameter. The description adds minimal value by restating that it accepts 'email, username, key, or account ID' - information already present in the schema description. No additional syntax, format, or validation details are provided beyond what's in the structured schema.

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 'Retrieve' and resource 'profile information for a specific Jira user', making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'jira_search_user' by focusing on a single user's profile rather than search functionality. The title 'Get User Profile' aligns perfectly with the description.

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 you need profile information for a specific user, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like 'jira_search_user' or 'confluence_search_user'. It mentions the user_identifier parameter but doesn't provide guidance on when to use different identifier types. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned beyond the error handling note.

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