Citizen Deployment 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 and excels by disclosing critical behavioral traits: it describes a polling pattern (every 5-10 seconds), expected status outcomes ('completed' or 'failed'), and how to handle failures (read ALL logs to identify errors like missing dependencies). This goes beyond basic functionality to include operational guidance.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by critical usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the error-handling advice into the polling instruction.

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 complexity (involves polling and error analysis), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage context, behavioral expectations, and even hints at output content (status and logs with error types like 'missing dependencies'), compensating for the lack of structured fields.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'run_id' documented as 'Deployment run ID (returned from deploy_from_git or deploy_from_local)'. The description does not add further meaning beyond this, but the baseline is 3 since the schema adequately covers the single parameter.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('get deployment run status and detailed logs') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_deployment_runs' (which likely lists runs without detailed status/logs) and deployment tools ('deploy_from_git', 'deploy_from_local') by focusing on post-deployment monitoring.

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?

It provides explicit usage instructions: 'After starting any deployment, poll this every 5-10 seconds until status is "completed" or "failed"'. It also distinguishes when to use this tool (for status/logs of a specific run) versus alternatives like 'list_deployment_runs' (for listing runs) or deployment tools (for initiating deployments).

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