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 mutation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to other TCR fields not mentioned, or any rate limits. The description adds no context beyond the basic action.

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 zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear name and good schema coverage, though it could benefit from more detail given the lack of annotations.

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 an update operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a TCR is, what fields can be updated beyond quantity, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool in a system with many similar tools, more context is needed to guide proper 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 three parameters (templateGuid, tcrGuid, Quantity). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what a TCR is or how the quantity update affects the system. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 Template Component Reference' clearly states the action (update) and resource (Template Component Reference), but it's vague about what specifically gets updated. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like jpi_update_template_task or jpi_update_jcr, which also update related entities in the same system.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling update tools (e.g., jpi_update_template, jpi_update_task), the description doesn't specify that this is for updating TCRs specifically or mention prerequisites like needing existing template and TCR GUIDs.

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