Jules 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 retrieves details but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, error handling (e.g., if the session doesn't exist), rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. The mention of return values is basic and doesn't add depth beyond what the output schema likely provides.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are clearly labeled and concise, with no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by directly contributing to understanding the tool's functionality.

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 (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value details), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics well, but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, which are important for a tool that likely interacts with session management in a broader system.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'session_name' by specifying it as a 'Resource name' and providing an example format ('sessions/abc123'), which compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. This clarifies the parameter's purpose and expected syntax beyond the bare schema, making it highly valuable.

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 details') and resource ('about a specific session'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from siblings like 'list_sessions' by focusing on a single session rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings like 'create_session' beyond the verb difference.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing session), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_sessions' for browsing or 'create_session' for initial setup. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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