Visum Thinker MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes the configuration action but lacks details on permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what happens to existing configurations. It mentions the tool's purpose and input options but doesn't fully disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic operation.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose, second provides prerequisite guidance, third explains input alternatives. Every sentence earns its place and the description is appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality.

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?

For a configuration tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage well but lacks behavioral context about what configuration entails (permissions, side effects, error handling). It's adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for a mutation tool without structured safety information.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by explaining the relationship between dsegset, segmentNumbers, and filterMode as alternatives, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Configure'), the target resource ('demand segments (DSEGSET) on a PrT Assignment procedure'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by referencing visum_list_demand_segments. It specifies the verb+resource+context precisely.

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 when to use this tool ('Use visum_list_demand_segments first to see available segments') and provides clear alternatives for input methods (segment codes OR numbers OR filter by mode). This gives comprehensive guidance on prerequisites and parameter selection.

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