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 this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or whether it returns structured data vs. documentation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: the first sentence states what the tool does, and the second provides usage guidance. There's no fluff or redundancy.

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 (simple, parameterless read operation) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format or error handling. For a discovery tool without structured output documentation, more context on what information is returned would be beneficial.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to document. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool where the schema fully covers the empty input structure.

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: 'Get information about the JPI API and available endpoints.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('information about the JPI API and available endpoints'), making it clear this is a metadata/descriptive operation. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'jpi_get_settings' or 'jpi_get_events', which might also provide informational data.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this to understand what operations are available.' This tells the agent when to use this tool—specifically for discovering available API endpoints and operations. It doesn't mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a read-only discovery tool.

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