JPI MCP Server

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 states 'Add,' implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial details like behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error cases), usage guidelines relative to siblings, and any explanation of what a 'Template Component Reference' entails in this system.

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 three parameters (templateGuid, ComponentGuid, Quantity) with basic descriptions. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what a 'Template Component Reference' is or how the Quantity parameter affects the reference. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the resource ('Template Component Reference to a template'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'jpi_add_component_task' or 'jpi_add_template_task', which likely involve adding different types of references or tasks to templates.

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. Given sibling tools like 'jpi_add_component_task' and 'jpi_add_template_task', there's no indication of what distinguishes adding a 'Template Component Reference' from adding a 'component task' or 'template task' to a template.

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