mcp-zuul

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Live pipeline status' and filtering options, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, whether it's read-only or has side effects, response format, or pagination. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations, leaving significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a bulleted list of parameters with brief explanations. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics well, but lacks behavioral context like safety or performance traits. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but overall, the description is adequate with clear gaps in transparency for a tool with filtering capabilities.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining each parameter's purpose: 'tenant' uses default if empty, 'pipeline' and 'project' filter to specific names, and 'active_only' shows only pipelines with active items with a default. This clarifies semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover all potential nuances like parameter formats or interactions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Live pipeline status showing what's currently queued/running.' It specifies the verb ('showing') and resource ('pipeline status'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_pipelines' or 'get_change_status' by focusing on current operational state rather than historical lists or specific change tracking. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'get_job' which might also show status.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'currently queued/running' and filtering parameters, suggesting it's for real-time monitoring. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_pipelines' or 'get_change_status', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is limited to implied context without clear alternatives.

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