JPI 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. While 'Add' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if the task becomes immediately active, what happens on duplicate TaskNo, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with 10 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 states the core functionality without any fluff. It's perfectly front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it immediately scannable and understandable.

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?

For a complex mutation tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after task addition, return values, error handling, or system constraints. The agent must rely entirely on the parameter schema without broader operational context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'Production time in seconds', 'Predecessor task numbers'). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without providing extra value.

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 ('Add') and resource ('a new task to a job'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'jpi_add_tasks_batch' (batch operations) and 'jpi_add_template_task' (template-based tasks) by focusing on single task addition to a specific job. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'jpi_create_tasks_cross_jobs' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 like 'jpi_add_tasks_batch' for bulk operations or 'jpi_add_template_task' for template-based tasks. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., job must exist), constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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