Ops 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. It mentions the return format ('list of job runs with status, timing and duration') but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: purpose statement first, followed by organized parameter documentation with clear formatting. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words or redundant information.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, 1 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but presence of an output schema, the description does well by thoroughly documenting all parameters. The output schema means return values don't need explanation, but behavioral aspects like safety and constraints could be more 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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 5 parameters in the Args section, including format examples (e.g., ISO date, comma-separated states), default values, and important usage guidance for 'env'. This adds substantial meaning beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 ('job runs for an EMR Serverless application'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_job_run_details' or 'list_emr_applications', which would be needed for 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 implied usage context through the 'env' parameter guidance ('IMPORTANT: Do NOT guess or default. Ask the user which environment if not specified'), which suggests when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, it lacks explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives for filtering job runs.

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