Jina AI Remote MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what content is searched (Jina AI news/blog posts) and the purpose (finding documentation, tutorials, etc.), but doesn't disclose operational traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or error handling. The description adds useful context about content scope but lacks technical behavioral details.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence establishes purpose and scope, the second provides usage context. Every phrase adds value without redundancy, 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?

For a search tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage context but lacks behavioral details about how results are returned, formatted, or limited. It's complete enough for basic understanding but would benefit from information about result structure or operational constraints given the absence of output schema.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions search terms generally but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage guidance for parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Search Jina AI news and blog posts') and resource ('at jina.ai/news'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_arxiv or search_web by specifying the exclusive Jina AI content source. It explicitly lists the types of content covered (documentation, tutorials, announcements, deep-dives).

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('to find official Jina documentation, tutorials, product announcements, and technical deep-dives'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings. It implies usage for Jina-specific content versus general web searches, though not with explicit exclusions.

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