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 full burden. It mentions 'recent' service requests, hinting at temporal filtering, but doesn't disclose key behaviors like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'recent' means. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the key action and scope, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose and parameter context but lacks behavioral details and usage guidance, making it incomplete for safe and effective 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 meaning by specifying that the 'neighborhood' parameter is for Winnipeg and relates to 311 service requests, but doesn't provide format examples, valid values, or constraints beyond what's implied. This partially compensates but leaves ambiguity.

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 ('Search for') and resource ('311 service requests'), with geographic scope ('Winnipeg neighborhood') and temporal qualifier ('recent'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on 311 issues rather than transit or planning tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for 311 service requests in Winnipeg neighborhoods, but it doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from potential similar tools (none listed as siblings).

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