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 effectively warns about the 'large payload' and specifies that it returns 'FULL task details,' which gives important context about performance characteristics and output granularity. However, it doesn't mention other behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the core functionality, warning about payload size, and providing alternative guidance. There's zero wasted text, and the most critical information (what it does) comes first.

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 zero-parameter read operation with no annotations or output schema, the description provides excellent context about what it returns ('FULL task details'), performance implications ('large payload'), and clear alternatives. The main gap is the lack of information about the return format structure, but given the tool's relative simplicity, this is a minor omission.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters, maintaining a baseline of 4 for this situation where no parameter explanation is needed.

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 ('List') and resource ('all jobs in the JPI system'), specifies the scope ('with FULL task details'), and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools ('jpi_list_jobs_summary' and 'jpi_list_jobs_at_risk'). This provides specific differentiation beyond just the tool name.

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 explicit guidance on when to use alternatives: 'Use jpi_list_jobs_summary for job overviews or jpi_list_jobs_at_risk for risk analysis.' It also includes a warning about payload size, helping the agent understand when this tool might not be appropriate.

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