JPI MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the GUID is invalid), authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence ('Get a specific resource group by its GUID') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it optimally concise.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or output, which are needed for full agent understanding. Without annotations or output schema, more context would improve completeness.

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 the single parameter 'guid' documented as 'Group GUID' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, merely restating that the tool operates 'by its GUID.' With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 target ('a specific resource group'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'jpi_list_resource_groups' by specifying retrieval of a single item via GUID. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other 'get' tools (e.g., 'jpi_get_resource'), leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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 mentions 'by its GUID' but doesn't explain prerequisites (e.g., needing a known GUID) or compare it to list operations. With siblings like 'jpi_list_resource_groups' available, the lack of usage context is a clear gap.

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