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. It effectively discloses behavioral traits by explaining the domain logic: failedJob means 'retries=0' and failedExternalTask means 'worker reported a failure.' It also clarifies these are 'open' incidents (state-based filtering). Could explicitly state this is read-only.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: purpose declaration, bulleted type definitions with explanations, and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place—no filler. The progression from general definition to specific types to usage patterns is logical and efficient.

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 4 parameters with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides adequate domain context. It explains the process engine incident model sufficiently and covers pagination parameters implicitly through usage guidance. As a list operation, it appropriately focuses on filtering logic rather than return values.

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 has 100% description coverage, but the description adds crucial semantic context beyond the schema. It explains what 'failedJob' actually means (service task/timer threw exception, retries exhausted) and defines failedExternalTask, helping the agent understand the business logic behind the incidentType 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 clearly states the tool 'List[s] open incidents in the process engine' with specific verb and resource. It defines what incidents are ('things that went wrong during execution') and identifies key types. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_activity_history or list_process_instances.

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?

Provides explicit filtering guidance: 'Use without filters to see all open incidents. Filter by processInstanceId to see incidents for a specific process.' This clarifies how to scope queries. Lacks explicit alternatives (e.g., when to use get_job_details instead), but the context provided is clear.

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