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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new resource' implies a write operation, but it doesn't specify permissions needed, whether the creation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or the expected response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits 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: 'Create a new resource.' It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to the core purpose without 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 complexity of a creation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'resource' entails, how it relates to other entities (e.g., resource groups), or what the tool returns. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively without additional inference.

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%, with clear descriptions for all 5 parameters (e.g., 'Resource name', 'Resource capacity (default 100)'). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as 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 'Create a new resource' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource type ('resource'), but it's vague about what a 'resource' means in this context. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like jpi_create_resource_category or jpi_create_resource_group, which suggests different types of resources. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or comparisons to sibling tools like jpi_create_resource_category or jpi_update_resource. An agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for informed decision-making.

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