Agile Team 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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type ('List of model names') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, which is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently sized and well-organized.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but misses behavioral context and usage guidelines, leaving gaps in completeness.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains the 'provider' parameter with examples ('e.g., "openai", "anthropic"'), clarifying its purpose and expected values, effectively compensating for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 ('List all available models') and the resource ('for a specific provider'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_providers_tool' which suggests a related but distinct function, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as how it relates to 'list_providers_tool' or other persona tools. It only describes what the tool does, not the context or prerequisites for its use.

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