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. It mentions 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like (since there's no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get a specific task within a job'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.

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 (a read operation with no annotations or output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information is returned about the task, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., needing valid GUIDs). For a tool that fetches specific data, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 both parameters (jobGuid and taskGuid) clearly documented as GUIDs. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain GUID format or where to find these values), so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 task within a job'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'jpi_get_component_task' or 'jpi_get_template_task', which also retrieve specific tasks but in different contexts (component vs. template).

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. For example, it doesn't mention when to use 'jpi_get_task' instead of 'jpi_get_job' (which might include task details) or 'jpi_list_jobs' (for broader queries). The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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