PowerBI Analyst MCP

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 successfully documents the return structure (id, name, description, publisher, last update time, workspaceId) and implies read-only access via the verb 'List.' However, it stops short of explicitly stating safety characteristics or error conditions.

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 efficiently structured with four sentences: purpose, return values, usage instructions for downstream tools, and fallback guidance. Every sentence provides critical information without redundancy, placing the most important information first.

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 that an output schema exists (per context signals), the description appropriately focuses on explaining the semantic importance of specific fields (particularly `workspaceId`) rather than exhaustively listing all return fields. It adequately covers the tool's role in the ecosystem with siblings like `list_workspaces` and `execute_dax`.

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 input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately does not mention parameters, which is correct given the empty schema requires no additional semantic explanation.

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 specific action (List) and resource (Power BI apps) with scope (installed for the authenticated user). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tool `list_workspaces` by clarifying that this returns apps and their underlying workspaceIds, not workspaces directly.

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 guidance on when to use an alternative: 'If no apps are installed, try `list_workspaces` instead.' It also clearly specifies how to use the output with other tools, emphasizing to use `workspaceId` (not app `id`) for `list_datasets`, `execute_dax`, and other dataset tools.

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