XMI MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists enumerations with filtering but doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., format, pagination), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all enumerations') and adds a key detail ('with optional filtering'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values (e.g., what data is included in the list), behavioral traits like safety or performance, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a listing tool with no structured output definition, more context is needed to guide effective 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('package' and 'namePattern'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional filtering' but doesn't provide additional context like examples or usage scenarios. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('List') and resource ('all enumerations'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also mentions optional filtering, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_enumeration' or 'search_by_name', which prevents a perfect score.

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. With siblings like 'get_enumeration' (likely for single enumeration details) and 'search_by_name' (likely for broader searches), the agent has no indication of when this filtered listing is preferred. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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