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. It states 'Get' implies a read operation, but doesn't specify if it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, error handling). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, with no wasted information.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 2 required parameters. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, permissions), output format, or error conditions, which are crucial for an agent to use it correctly in a complex environment with many sibling tools.

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 both parameters ('jobGuid' and 'jcrGuid') documented in the schema as 'Job GUID' and 'JCR GUID'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or relationships between parameters, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Get') and resource ('Job Component Reference'), explaining it's a reference to a component used in a job. It's specific about what the tool retrieves, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'jpi_get_component' or 'jpi_get_task', which might retrieve related but different entities.

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. With many sibling tools like 'jpi_get_component' or 'jpi_get_job', the description lacks context on prerequisites, such as needing a job and JCR GUID, or comparisons to other get operations, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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