Jina AI Remote MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool uses 'an up-to-date query expansion model' and returns 'multiple expanded queries', but lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or potential limitations. The description is functional but insufficient for a mutation-like operation (query expansion) without annotation support.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences that each add value: stating the tool's function, explaining the input/output, and providing usage context. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though the third sentence could be slightly more concise.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a single-parameter tool. It covers the basic purpose and usage, but lacks details on return values (e.g., format of expanded queries), error handling, or performance characteristics, which would be helpful for an agent to use it effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'query' parameter with examples. The description adds marginal value by implying the query should be for search purposes (e.g., 'machine learning', 'climate change'), but doesn't provide additional syntax, constraints, or format details beyond what the schema specifies.

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: 'Expand and rewrite search queries based on an up-to-date query expansion model' and 'returns multiple expanded queries'. It specifies the verb (expand/rewrite) and resource (search queries), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'parallel_search_web' or 'search_web' beyond mentioning 'more diversed and deeper searches'.

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 guidance: 'Useful for improving deep research results by searching broader and deeper'. It suggests when to use it (for deeper research) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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