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 it's a read operation ('Get'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover other aspects like authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the GUID doesn't exist. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context.

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 function without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, read-only operation) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it fails to provide behavioral context (e.g., response format, error cases) that would be helpful for an AI agent. It meets the bare minimum but leaves gaps in operational understanding.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'guid' parameter clearly documented as 'Category GUID'. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, validation rules). According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param details in the description.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific resource category'), making the purpose unambiguous. It specifies retrieval by GUID, which distinguishes it from list operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar 'get' tools like jpi_get_resource or jpi_get_resource_group, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like jpi_list_resource_categories (for browsing) or jpi_get_resource (for individual resources), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a known GUID. Usage context is implied but not articulated.

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