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. It states the tool deletes a resource, implying a destructive operation, but fails to mention critical details like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects on related data, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and front-loaded. It immediately communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, permissions), expected outcomes, error handling, and how it fits among sibling tools. This leaves the agent poorly equipped to use the tool safely and effectively in 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 the single parameter 'guid' clearly documented as 'Resource GUID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it only repeats that deletion is 'by its GUID'. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already provides adequate parameter information.

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 ('Delete') and target ('a resource by its GUID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from other deletion tools (like delete_component or delete_job) by specifying the resource type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling deletion tools.

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 like delete_resource_category or delete_resource_group. The description lacks context about prerequisites, permissions needed, or any warnings about when not to use it, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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