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 disclosure burden. It successfully adds critical behavioral context by specifying the tool uses the 'history API' and returns 'historic process instances,' implying read-only access to archived data. It also discloses the default pagination limit (25).

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?

Text is efficiently structured with a clear opening sentence, a 'when to use' sentence, a return value statement, and a bulleted list for filter options. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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 7 parameters with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers tool purpose, behavioral API type (history), return structure (array), and provides concrete examples for key filters. Missing only minor details like explicit mention that all parameters are optional or the relationship between the three boolean state flags.

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?

While the schema has 100% description coverage (baseline 3), the description adds helpful examples for processDefinitionKey and businessKey. However, it documents a 'state' enum parameter (ACTIVE, COMPLETED, SUSPENDED, EXTERNALLY_TERMINATED) that does not exist in the schema; instead, the schema implements these as three separate boolean flags (active, suspended, completed). This mismatch creates confusion about how to structure filter parameters.

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 'Search for process instances using filters' providing a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes scope by noting it uses the 'history API to find both running and completed instances,' which differentiates it from siblings like get_process_instance (singular retrieval) and get_activity_history (activity level vs instance level).

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 'Use this when you need to find process instances by business key, definition key, or state,' providing clear context for when to select this tool. While it doesn't explicitly name the alternative (e.g., 'use get_process_instance when you have an ID'), the filtering focus implies this is for discovery rather than direct retrieval.

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