Visum Thinker 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 indicates this is a read operation ('List') and mentions it operates on 'the loaded Visum project', but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. It provides basic context but lacks operational details.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states what the tool does, the second provides usage guidance. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated immediately.

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 read-only listing tool with good schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides adequate context. It specifies the resource scope (demand segments for PrT modes), mentions the project context, and gives clear usage guidance. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from mentioning what the list returns (e.g., segment IDs, names, or codes).

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 fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions 'PrT modes' which relates to the filterMode parameter, but doesn't provide new syntax or format details. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the 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 specific action ('List all available demand segments') and specifies the resource type ('for PrT modes in the loaded Visum project'). It distinguishes from potential siblings by focusing on demand segments specifically, unlike broader tools like visum_network_analysis or visum_network_stats.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this before configuring DSEGSET on a procedure') and references a specific sibling tool (visum_configure_dsegset) as the next step. This provides clear contextual guidance for tool sequencing.

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