CIB Seven MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It excellently documents output semantics: explaining that missing endTime indicates running activities, that durationInMillis is null for active tasks, and detailing the canceled flag. It could improve by explicitly stating this is read-only/safe or mentioning any rate limits.

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?

Information is perfectly front-loaded: purpose in sentence one, value proposition in sentence two, critical interpretation guidance in sentence three. The 'Key fields' section efficiently documents output structure without verbosity. Every sentence and bullet earns its place.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description compensates comprehensively by enumerating and explaining key response fields (activityType, activityName, timestamps, duration, canceled). It contextualizes these within BPMN concepts (startEvent, serviceTask, etc.). Only minor gap is explicit confirmation of read-only safety.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with clear description 'The process instance ID to trace'. The tool description references 'process instance' in the context but doesn't add parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema's documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting for this single required parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('execution trace for a process instance'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings like get_process_instance (current state) or get_process_variables (data). The scope 'every activity that ran, in order' precisely defines what this tool retrieves.

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 explains what the tool returns (execution history, task order, duration), which implies when to use it (when you need audit trails). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_process_instance for current state or how it relates to the process lifecycle.

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