CIB Seven MCP Server

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries full disclosure burden. It excellently documents key output fields (retries, exceptionMessage, dueDate, suspended) and their semantics (e.g., '0 means the engine gave up'). Explains job states and error conditions without contradicting the read-only nature of the operation.

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?

Two well-structured blocks: purpose definition followed by key field documentation. Every sentence earns its place. Front-loaded with the primary action, followed by domain context, then specific field semantics. No redundancy.

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?

Compensates effectively for missing output schema by documenting four critical output fields with their meanings and relationships. Explains domain concepts (jobs vs incidents) necessary for interpretation. Given 3 simple parameters and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for successful invocation and result interpretation.

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 coverage is 100% (all 3 params documented). Description implies 'processInstanceId' usage via 'for a process instance', but doesn't add syntax details, format constraints, or pagination guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 appropriate given schema completeness.

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?

Clear specific verb ('Get') and resource ('job execution details'). Defines what jobs are ('units of work... service tasks, timers, message events') distinguishing them from process instances or activities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'list_incidents' despite mentioning the incident relationship.

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?

Explains job lifecycle concepts (retries=0 creates incident) which implies usage context, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs 'get_activity_history' or 'list_incidents'. No explicit prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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