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. It mentions that executions are a 'historical record,' implying read-only behavior, and hints at filtering and pagination capabilities. However, it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, response format, or whether this is a safe operation. For a list tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps uncovered.

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 ('List executions') and adds necessary context without waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 4 parameters with 50% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and hints at parameter usage but lacks details on behavioral traits, response format, and full parameter documentation. For a list tool with filtering, this is adequate but has clear gaps, especially in output expectations and safety assurances.

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 50% (two parameters have descriptions, two do not). The description adds value by explaining that parameters allow filtering 'by cue, status, or paginate,' which maps to cue_id, status, and limit/offset. However, it doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers for cue_id and status, and it doesn't clarify the undocumented limit and offset parameters fully. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description compensates somewhat but not completely.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('executions') with specific clarification that these are 'historical record of times a cue actually fired.' It distinguishes from siblings like cueapi_list_cues by focusing on execution records rather than cue definitions. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 through the phrase 'Optionally filter by cue, status, or paginate,' suggesting when to use filtering parameters. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like cueapi_list_cues or cueapi_report_outcome, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is present but limited to parameter usage rather than tool selection.

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