Xray MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It mentions 'query and filter' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't address pagination behavior (beyond the limit parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no results match filters. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 perfectly concise at just 6 words ('Query and filter test executions in Xray'). Every word earns its place by establishing the core action and resource. There's no wasted language, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration.

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 query tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what information is returned, how results are structured, whether the tool supports pagination beyond the limit parameter, or typical response formats. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and outputs.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the generic 'query and filter' context. This meets the baseline expectation when schema documentation is comprehensive, but doesn't provide extra value like explaining relationships between parameters or special constraints.

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 with a specific verb ('query and filter') and resource ('test executions in Xray'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this query/filter tool from sibling tools like 'get_test_info' or 'get_test_plans', which prevents a perfect score.

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 siblings like 'get_test_info' and 'get_test_plans' that might retrieve similar information, the agent receives no help in choosing between them. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusion criteria.

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