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. 'Update a resource' implies a mutation operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are partial or complete, side effects, error handling, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise ('Update a resource.') with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. Every sentence (here, a single sentence) 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?

Given the complexity of a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'resource' is, how updates behave, or what the tool returns. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is lacking for safe and 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (guid, Name, Capacity, Finite, Disabled) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage, resulting in the baseline score of 3.

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 'Update a resource' clearly states the action (update) and target (resource), but it's vague about what constitutes a 'resource' in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling update tools like jpi_update_resource_category or jpi_update_resource_group. It's a minimal but accurate statement of purpose.

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. With many sibling tools including other update operations (e.g., jpi_update_resource_category, jpi_update_job), there's no indication of scope, prerequisites, or distinctions. It lacks any usage context.

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