JFrog MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get details' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' entail (e.g., JSON structure, permissions). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get details'), making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding, with zero waste.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves details. It doesn't explain what 'details' include (e.g., permission settings, metadata), potential side effects, or response format. For a read operation with no structured output documentation, more context is needed to guide an agent 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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('name' and 'resourceType'), including an enum for 'resourceType'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints, but since the schema is well-documented, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't degrade understanding.

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 verb ('Get details') and resource ('specific resource type within a permission target'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'jfrog_get_permission_target' or 'jfrog_get_artifacts_summary', which might also retrieve permission-related details, leaving some ambiguity about its unique scope.

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. For example, it doesn't specify if this should be used instead of 'jfrog_get_permission_target' for granular resource details or as a follow-up to listing permission targets. The description implies usage for retrieving details but offers no context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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