ms-fabric-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 it returns a list of workspaces with specific fields and mentions authentication ('authenticated user'), but lacks details on rate limits, pagination, or error handling. This is adequate but has gaps for a read operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and an example. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second specifies return fields, and the third provides a usage example, with no 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 low complexity (0 parameters), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns' details), the description is complete. It covers purpose, return structure, and usage, leaving no significant gaps for this simple list operation.

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 explicitly states 'Parameters: None', which adds clarity beyond the schema, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 ('List all accessible Fabric workspaces') and resource ('Fabric workspaces'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_items' which lists items rather than workspaces. It explicitly defines the scope as all accessible workspaces for the authenticated user.

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 for when to use this tool: to retrieve all accessible workspaces. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'list_items' for other item types), which prevents a score of 5.

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