cueapi-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the cue 'fires a callback (or enqueues worker work)' and is 'scheduled,' but it does not disclose critical traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether creation is idempotent. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Create a new CueAPI cue') and then elaborates concisely on its nature and triggers. Every phrase adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly. There is no wasted text or unnecessary elaboration.

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 (8 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and trigger types but misses details on behavioral aspects, error cases, and return values. While it provides a foundation, it does not fully compensate for the missing structured data, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer 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?

Schema description coverage is high at 88%, so the schema already documents most parameters well (e.g., 'cron' as 'Cron expression for a recurring cue'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by hinting at the cron/at dichotomy and callback/worker modes, but it does not explain parameter interactions (e.g., mutual exclusivity of cron and at) or provide additional semantics. This meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 action ('Create a new CueAPI cue') and specifies the resource type ('scheduled job'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like cueapi_delete_cue, cueapi_get_cue, and cueapi_list_cues by focusing on creation rather than retrieval or deletion. The phrase 'fires a callback (or enqueues worker work) on a cron or one-time trigger' adds specificity about the cue's behavior.

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 by mentioning 'cron or one-time trigger' and the choice between callback and worker modes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cueapi_pause_cue or cueapi_resume_cue. It provides some context (e.g., 'omit for worker mode') but lacks clear guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, such as when a cue might not be creatable.

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