Winnipeg City 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 mentions optimization ('optimized the visit order (TSP) starting from the first stop') and optional date/time parameters, but it doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output contains. For a planning tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by parameter details. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. However, the formatting with 'Args:' and bullet-like points is slightly informal, and it could be more structured for clarity, preventing a perfect score.

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 (planning multi-stop journeys) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., how optimization works in practice) and doesn't leverage the output schema to explain return values. With no annotations and moderate parameter coverage, it meets baseline completeness but has clear gaps.

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 substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'stops' are 'List of locations (plain text, stop numbers, or formatted keys)', clarifies that 'optimize' uses 'TSP' and starts from the first stop, and notes that 'date' and 'time' are optional with format examples. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it could be more detailed on parameter interactions.

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: 'Plan a multi-stop journey (A -> B -> C ...).' It specifies the verb ('Plan') and resource ('multi-stop journey'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'plan_trip' or 'plan_timed_itinerary', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'plan_trip' or 'plan_timed_itinerary', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage is for multi-stop journeys, but without explicit comparisons, this is insufficient.

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