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 'optimized itinerary' but doesn't explain what optimization entails (e.g., time, cost, distance), whether it's read-only or mutative, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. The note about 'Stay times for the LAST stop are ignored' is a useful behavioral detail, but overall disclosure is minimal for a planning tool.

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, with the core purpose stated first, followed by parameter details. The 'Args:' section is structured but could be more concise (e.g., combining format details). Every sentence adds value, though minor trimming is possible.

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 complexity (planning tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidelines. The output schema existence means return values needn't be explained, but other gaps remain for effective tool use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema by detailing the structure of 'stops_config' (list of dictionaries with 'location', 'min_stay', 'max_stay' keys), clarifying that the first stop is the origin, and specifying date/time formats. However, it doesn't explain the 'additionalProperties' in the schema or the nullable/default behavior of 'start_date' and 'start_time'.

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 an optimized itinerary with specific stay durations at each stop.' It specifies the verb ('plan'), resource ('itinerary'), and key constraint ('with specific stay durations'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'plan_journey' or 'plan_trip' that lack duration specifications. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as 'get_bus_arrivals' or 'search_311_issues', which are clearly different.

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_journey' or 'plan_trip', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for selection. The only implied usage is for itinerary planning with stay durations, but this is redundant with purpose clarity.

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