CIB Seven MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Successfully discloses that 'Diagram layout elements are stripped for readability' (transformation behavior) and details what the XML includes (activities, gateways, sequence flows). Minor gap: could mention if this is expensive or cached, but 'Fetch' clearly indicates read-only nature.

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?

Excellent structure: first sentence defines purpose, second links to prerequisite tool, third sets expectations about XML content, followed by targeted bullet points explaining analytical use cases. No wasted words; every sentence 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 no output schema, description comprehensively compensates by detailing XML contents (activities, gateways, conditions) and explaining analytical value (happy path, error boundaries, timers). For a single-parameter read operation, coverage is complete.

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%, providing full parameter documentation. Description reinforces the parameter provenance by referencing get_process_instance, matching the schema description. At 100% coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate as schema carries the semantic weight.

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 uses specific verb 'Fetch' with clear resource 'BPMN XML model for a process definition' and distinguishes from siblings like get_process_instance (which retrieves runtime instance data) by emphasizing this retrieves the static 'blueprint' model.

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?

Explicitly states prerequisite 'Use the definitionId from get_process_instance to fetch the model,' providing clear workflow guidance linking to sibling tool. Also explains when to use the result (to understand happy path, gateway conditions, error events).

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