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. It states 'List test plans' but does not mention any behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, error handling, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage, making it unclear how the tool behaves beyond basic listing.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('List test plans') and context ('in a project'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the description earns its place by conveying essential information succinctly.

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. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list format, fields included) or any behavioral aspects like pagination or errors. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, this leaves critical gaps in understanding how to use it 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting both parameters ('projectKey' and 'limit'). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the format of 'projectKey' or typical use cases for 'limit'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('List') and resource ('test plans in a project'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_test_info' or 'query_test_executions', which might also retrieve test-related data, leaving some ambiguity about its specific 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context such as whether this is for browsing all test plans, if it's the primary retrieval method, or how it differs from siblings like 'get_test_info' or 'query_test_executions', leaving the agent without usage direction.

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