Wisepanel MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'Makes the deliberation publicly viewable and shareable' and has a prerequisite ('Only works for runs that completed successfully in this session'), adding useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving 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 front-loaded with the core action and outcome, followed by a critical constraint. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-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 complexity (a mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, usage context, and outcome, but lacks details on return values or error cases, which would be helpful for an agent invoking it. This slight gap prevents a perfect score.

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 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'run_id' documented as 'The run ID of a completed deliberation'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.

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 specific action ('Publish') and resource ('a completed deliberation to the Wisepanel Commons'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'wisepanel_list_runs' or 'wisepanel_cancel'. It specifies the target platform and the outcome ('publicly viewable and shareable'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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: only for 'runs that completed successfully in this session'. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for incomplete runs) or name alternatives like 'wisepanel_result' for viewing results without publishing, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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