Jesse MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Documents return value structure (Dict with id, type, status, etc.) which aids response handling, but omits safety traits (read-only assumption), rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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?

Uses efficient docstring format (Args/Returns). Three compact sections with no redundant filler. Returns clause is information-dense but readable.

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?

Adequate for a 2-parameter list tool. Output schema exists per context signals, yet description helpfully enumerates return fields. Missing: definition of 'recent' timeframe, enumeration of valid job_type values, and permission requirements.

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?

Effectively compensates for 0% schema description coverage by documenting both parameters: job_type (optional filter) and limit (max count, default 50). Clarifies optionality and defaults not present in schema descriptions.

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?

States a clear action (List) and resource (jobs), though 'recent' is ambiguous regarding time window. Does not explicitly differentiate from sibling status-checking tools like backtesting_status or trading_live_status.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this generic job list versus specific status tools (e.g., backtesting_status, strategy_create_status). No prerequisites or exclusion criteria mentioned.

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