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 for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Add a new task' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether the task is immediately active, if there are validation rules, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unclear.

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, clear sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward operation, though it could potentially benefit from a brief second sentence about usage context or outcomes.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful addition, what the response contains, error conditions, or how this operation affects the template system. The combination of mutation nature and missing structured metadata requires more descriptive 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, providing clear documentation for all 7 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. However, it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how time fields interact) or provide examples of valid ResourceGroupConstraints.

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 template' clearly states the action (add) and target (task to template), but it's somewhat vague about what constitutes a 'task' in this context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'jpi_add_task' (which likely adds tasks to jobs rather than templates) and 'jpi_add_template_task' (which appears to be a deletion counterpart), but could be more specific about the template-task relationship.

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. For example, it doesn't mention when to use 'jpi_add_task' (for jobs) versus this template version, or whether batch operations ('jpi_add_tasks_batch') might be preferable for multiple tasks. The description offers only the basic function without contextual usage advice.

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