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 the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves 'up-to-date contextual information' and implies it's a read operation without destructive effects. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness guarantees, or error handling. The description adds value by specifying the types of context but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage. The first sentence explains what the tool does, and the second provides clear guidance on when to use it. There is no redundant or extraneous information, making it easy to parse and understand 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 tool's complexity (simple context retrieval with no parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and usage well but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format, potential errors, or data sources. For a tool with no structured metadata, it should ideally include more about what information is returned and how it's structured.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately avoids discussing parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. This aligns with the baseline expectation for tools with no parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.

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: to 'get up-to-date contextual information of the current session' for providing 'localized, time-aware responses.' It specifies the types of information retrieved (current time, user's location, network environment) and the goal (more relevant and personalized information). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'guess_datetime_url' or 'show_api_key,' which might provide overlapping context.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when you need to know the current time, user's location, or network environment to give more relevant and personalized information.' This clearly states when to use the tool, including specific scenarios (e.g., for time-aware responses) and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on session context rather than external data retrieval or processing.

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