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 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., what happens if the test key is invalid), or the format of the returned information. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Retrieve detailed information about a specific test case') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and no complex behavioral nuances to explain.

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 'detailed information'. It doesn't hint at what information is returned (e.g., test status, steps, attachments) or potential side effects. While the schema covers the single parameter well, the overall context for the agent to use this tool effectively is lacking.

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 'testKey' parameter clearly documented as a 'Test issue key (e.g., "PROJ-123")'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid keys or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('detailed information about a specific test case'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_test_plans' or 'query_test_executions', which might also retrieve test-related information but with different scopes or filters.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid test key), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_test_plans' (which might retrieve broader test plan info) or 'query_test_executions' (which might filter executions). This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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