Winnipeg City MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'recent 311 activity,' which hints at data recency, but doesn't specify what 'recent' means, how the list is structured, if there are rate limits, or any error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the purpose and parameter usage without any wasted words. Each sentence adds clear value, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate for basic use. However, without annotations and with gaps in behavioral details (e.g., definition of 'recent'), it doesn't fully prepare the agent for edge cases or advanced scenarios, though the output schema may cover return values.

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 adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'search_term' by providing an example ('e.g., 'Fort'') and clarifying it's optional, which helps interpret its use. Since schema description coverage is 0% and there's only one parameter, this compensates well, though it doesn't detail format constraints beyond the example.

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: 'Get a list of Winnipeg neighborhoods that have had recent 311 activity.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('Winnipeg neighborhoods'), and scope ('recent 311 activity'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_311_issues', which might also involve 311 data, leaving room for minor ambiguity.

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 some implied usage guidance by mentioning the optional 'search_term' filter, suggesting it can be used for targeted queries. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_311_issues' or other siblings, and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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