Jesse MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses the async polling pattern ('Poll') and provides detailed return value structure including the conditional 'result (when complete)' field, giving clear expectations about response shape and completion behavior.

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 uses a clean, structured format with clear 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. Every line earns its place; no redundancy or filler text. The one-sentence purpose statement is immediately followed by structured technical details.

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 single-parameter polling tool, the description is adequately complete: it explains the input, the async behavior, and the output structure (acting as the output schema documentation). It could mention error states or polling intervals, but the core functionality is fully covered.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that 'job_id' is a 'Job identifier from strategy_create', providing necessary semantic context about the parameter's origin and nature that 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 clearly states the specific action ('Poll async job progress') and scope ('for strategy creation'), using precise verbs that distinguish it from the sibling 'strategy_create' tool which actually creates the strategy.

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 the workflow by stating the job_id comes from 'strategy_create', indicating when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. generic 'jobs_list') or alternatives for checking status.

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