Jesse MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only discloses that the operation cancels a job and returns a status dict. It omits critical behavioral details like idempotency, error conditions (invalid job_id), whether cancellation is graceful/immediate, and if partial strategy data persists.

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 a structured docstring format (Args/Returns) that is front-loaded and efficient. Every line serves a purpose, though the formal structure is slightly more verbose than prose for a single-parameter tool.

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 simple cancellation tool with one parameter and an output schema (mentioned in context signals). However, lacking annotations, it should disclose more about error handling and state management to be fully complete.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the Args section fully compensates by clearly defining job_id as the 'Job identifier to cancel', providing necessary semantic context the schema lacks.

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 provides a specific verb (Cancel) and resource (async strategy creation job), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like strategy_create (which initiates jobs) and strategy_delete (which removes completed strategies).

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 implies usage context (async jobs) but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, such as specifying this is for stopping pending/running jobs or clarifying behavior if the job is already complete.

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