BPMN-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 states the action (export) but doesn't describe what the export produces (e.g., file content, download link), error conditions, permissions required, or side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 ('Export a BPMN diagram as SVG') that directly states the tool's function with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (export operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on the output (what the SVG contains, how it's returned), error handling, and dependencies (e.g., diagram must exist). For a tool with no structured output or annotations, more context is needed.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'diagramId' documented as 'The diagram ID.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to find the ID. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 as 'Export a BPMN diagram as SVG,' which is a specific verb (export) and resource (BPMN diagram). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'export_bpmn_xml' by specifying the output format (SVG vs XML), but doesn't differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'create_bpmn_diagram' is clearly different).

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing diagram), compare it to 'export_bpmn_xml' for format choice, or indicate when export might fail. Usage is implied from the name and purpose alone.

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