JPI MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'adds' a task without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a mutating operation, what permissions are needed, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response looks like. For a tool that likely modifies data, this is inadequate transparency.

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for such a basic description and front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place, though the brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 this is a mutation tool (implied by 'add') with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid task, how tasks relate to components, what happens after addition, or error conditions. For a 7-parameter tool in a domain with many similar tools, this minimal description leaves significant gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how ProductionTimePerUnit relates to SetupTime) or provide examples beyond what the schema offers.

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 'Add a new task to a component' clearly states the action (add) and target (task to component), but it's vague about what a 'task' entails in this context and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'jpi_add_task' or 'jpi_add_template_task'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about the domain or task characteristics.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'jpi_add_task' (generic task addition) and 'jpi_add_template_task' (template-based), the description doesn't help an agent choose between them. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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