EMS 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 of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context beyond basic functionality, such as constraints (max 10 flight IDs, max 20 analytics), data sources (query_database, search_analytics), and output format options. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only/destructive, leaving gaps for a tool with 7 parameters.

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?

The description is well-structured with a purpose statement, usage guidelines, detailed parameter explanations, and return information. It is appropriately sized for a complex tool, though slightly verbose; every sentence adds value, such as clarifying data sources and parameter details, but could be more front-loaded by moving key constraints earlier.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and output formats adequately. However, it lacks behavioral details like error conditions or performance implications, which would be beneficial for a data query tool.

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?

The description compensates fully for the 0% schema description coverage by explaining all 7 parameters in the 'Args' section with clear semantics, examples (e.g., ['Airspeed', 'Altitude']), defaults (sample_rate: 1.0, output_format: 'table'), and constraints (max values). It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, such as how analytics are resolved and what offsets represent.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Get time-series data') and resources ('for specific flights'), listing example data types like altitude and airspeed. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying flight IDs come from query_database and analytic names/IDs from search_analytics, avoiding overlap with tools like get_assets or list_databases.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool by stating 'Flight IDs come from query_database' and 'Accepts human-readable analytic names... or raw IDs from search_analytics', directly naming sibling tools as sources. It also implies when not to use it by specifying data types (time-series) and constraints like max 10 flight IDs, though it doesn't explicitly list all alternatives.

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