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 and adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses the return format (metadata like Name, DueDate, etc., with TaskCount), performance impact (reduced token usage), and comparison to sibling tool. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination or error handling.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first defines purpose and output, the second provides usage guidance and comparison. It's front-loaded with essential information and efficiently structured.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, output, usage, and performance. A slight gap exists in not detailing exact metadata fields or error cases, but it's sufficient for 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on tool behavior. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as it avoids unnecessary details.

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 all jobs') and resource ('jobs'), specifies what is excluded ('WITHOUT task details'), and distinguishes it from sibling 'jpi_list_jobs' by noting it returns only metadata with TaskCount. This is specific and differentiates it from alternatives.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('for job overviews to reduce token usage') and provides a direct alternative ('~80% smaller than jpi_list_jobs'), guiding the agent on selection based on efficiency needs.

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