JPI MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the tool retrieves a template but doesn't disclose if it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), what happens with invalid GUIDs (e.g., errors), authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information, earning 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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic action but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or output expectations. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement in guiding effective use.

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 'Template GUID' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing instructions. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('a specific job template'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'jpi_list_templates' by specifying retrieval of a single template by GUID rather than listing all templates. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other 'get' tools like 'jpi_get_component' or 'jpi_get_job' beyond the resource type.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid GUID), when not to use it (e.g., for listing templates), or refer to sibling tools like 'jpi_list_templates' for broader queries. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context.

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