Jesse MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the confirmation safety mechanism, it fails to state whether deletion is permanent/irreversible, what happens if the strategy doesn't exist, or whether associated data (logs, backtests) are also removed.

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 clear docstring format with Args and Returns sections. The one-line summary is front-loaded. The Returns section is minimal but acceptable since an output schema exists. Structure is readable though slightly verbose for a two-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?

Covers the essential purpose, parameters, and return type for a deletion tool. However, given this is a destructive operation with no annotations and no indication of reversibility or side effects, the description leaves significant behavioral gaps that could lead to unsafe usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adequately compensates by documenting both parameters: 'name' specifies it is the strategy name to delete, and 'confirm' explains the safety requirement (must be True) and default value (False).

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 tool deletes a strategy with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tool 'strategy_create_cancel', which may have different semantics (canceling creation vs. deleting existing).

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 documents the 'confirm' parameter requirement (must be True to actually delete), but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'strategy_create_cancel', or prerequisites such as whether the strategy must be stopped first.

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