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. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or what happens if the TCR doesn't exist. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate behavioral disclosure.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with zero waste. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses the full acronym expansion (Template Component Reference) for clarity. 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?

For a retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a TCR is, what format the response takes, or provide any context about the retrieval operation. With 2 required parameters and no structured output documentation, more context is needed for proper agent usage.

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 clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 states the action ('Get') and resource ('Template Component Reference'), but it's vague about what 'Get' entails - retrieval, lookup, or fetch? It doesn't distinguish from sibling 'get' tools like jpi_get_component or jpi_get_template, which have similar naming patterns but different resources.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools including other 'get' operations (jpi_get_component, jpi_get_template, etc.), the description provides no context about when this specific TCR retrieval is appropriate versus other retrieval operations.

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