Rootly MCP server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions a 200 success response with an example, but doesn't explain pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when filters return no results. For an 11-parameter listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 reasonably structured with clear sections for query parameters and responses, but contains redundant information. The parameter descriptions repeat what's already in the schema (like the enum values for include and sort), and the response section could be more concise. While not excessively verbose, some content doesn't earn its place.

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?

For an 11-parameter listing tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (mentioned in context signals), the description still lacks crucial context about pagination behavior, filtering logic, authentication requirements, and error scenarios. The response example is minimal ('key: value') and unhelpful. Given the complexity and parameter count, this description leaves too many unanswered questions.

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 only 18%, meaning most parameters lack documentation in the schema. The description attempts to compensate by listing all parameters with brief notes, but provides meaningful descriptions for only 2 parameters (include and sort). The other 9 parameters have 'No description' or just type information, leaving their purpose and usage unclear. This partial compensation is insufficient given the low 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 begins with 'List workflows' which is a tautology of the tool name 'listWorkflows'. It doesn't specify what kind of workflows (e.g., incident workflows, automation workflows) or provide any distinguishing context. While it's clear this is a listing operation, it lacks the specificity needed to differentiate it from other list tools in the sibling set like listAlerts, listIncidents, etc.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparison with other listing tools in the sibling set (like listIncidents or listTeams). The agent receives no help in determining when this specific workflow listing tool is appropriate.

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