Xray 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. While 'Create and execute' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical aspects like required permissions, whether this is an atomic operation, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the output looks like (especially since there's no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that performs creation operations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a tool that creates and executes test runs (a mutation operation) with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks information about behavioral traits (permissions, side effects), doesn't differentiate from sibling tools, and provides no guidance on usage context. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall completeness is poor for this type of operation.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide examples beyond the schema). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 action ('Create and execute a test run') and the resource ('in Xray for specified test cases'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_test_execution' or 'associate_tests_to_execution', which likely have overlapping functionality in the Xray test management context.

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 sibling tools like 'create_test_execution' and 'associate_tests_to_execution' available, there's no indication of the specific scenarios, prerequisites, or differences that would help an agent choose this tool over others in the test execution workflow.

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