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. It discloses key behavioral traits: the filtering logic (IsDueDateExceeded=true OR BufferLevel < threshold), the return format (minimal fields), and performance characteristics (token efficiency). However, it doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no jobs are at risk. It adds value but leaves some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains the filtering logic, and the third provides critical context about output size and comparison to sibling. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words. The structure moves from what to how to why.

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 moderate complexity (filtered listing with one optional parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well. It explains the filtering criteria, output characteristics, and sibling comparison. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe the actual return structure or fields. For a listing tool, knowing the return format would be helpful, though the 'minimal fields' note provides some guidance.

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% (the single parameter 'bufferThreshold' is fully described in the schema). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description. The description's mention of 'BufferLevel < threshold' aligns with but doesn't expand on the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'List jobs at risk of missing due dates' with specific criteria (IsDueDateExceeded=true OR BufferLevel < threshold). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'jpi_list_jobs' by noting it returns minimal fields for token efficiency (~95% smaller). This provides a specific verb+resource+scope with clear 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to identify jobs at risk based on due date or buffer level. It explicitly mentions the alternative 'jpi_list_jobs' for full job listings, but doesn't specify when NOT to use it or compare to other risk-related tools (none exist in siblings). This gives good guidance but lacks explicit exclusions.

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