flyte-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how it handles errors, or what 'recent' means (e.g., time frame, ordering). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a cluster.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's basic function, earning it the highest score for efficiency.

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 (interacting with a Flyte cluster), no annotations, and an output schema present (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on authentication, error handling, or the definition of 'recent', leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, but the tool description doesn't mention any parameters at all. Since the schema coverage is low, the description fails to compensate by explaining the 'limit' parameter's role or semantics, resulting in a baseline score due to the lack of added value.

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 action ('List') and resource ('recent runs from the configured Flyte cluster'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_flyte_execution_status' or 'search_flyte_api', which might also retrieve run information, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer it over 'get_flyte_execution_status' (which might fetch a specific run) or 'search_flyte_api' (which might allow filtering), leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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