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' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update a resource category'), making it immediately clear. Every part of the sentence earns its place by directly stating the tool's function.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, error conditions) and doesn't explain what the tool returns. For a tool that modifies data, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent to operate safely and effectively.

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 both parameters ('guid' and 'Name') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter details, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 category' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('resource category'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'jpi_update_resource_group' or other update tools in the same domain, which would require more specificity about what makes a 'resource category' unique.

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 siblings like 'jpi_create_resource_category' and 'jpi_delete_resource_category', there's no indication of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing category GUID) or comparison to other update tools (e.g., 'jpi_update_resource'). This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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