Operaton MCP

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return contents (value, type, scope) and scope constraint (active instances only), but omits error behaviors, side effects, and whether this is read-only (implied but not confirmed).

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?

Two efficient sentences with no redundancy: first states action, second states return value. Well-structured and appropriately sized.

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?

Adequately covers basic intent given no output schema exists, mentioning return structure elements. However, lacks error handling details and doesn't resolve the parameter/schema mismatch.

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 has 0 parameters, but description implies required inputs (instance identifier, variable name) are needed to retrieve a 'single named variable'. Description fails to bridge this gap or explain the discrepancy, leaving the agent confused about how to specify the target.

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?

Clear specific verb 'Retrieve', identifies resource as 'single named variable' from 'active process instance', and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like processInstance_getVariables (plural) and history_listVariableInstances (active vs historic).

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?

Implies distinction from batch/variable retrieval tools via 'single' keyword, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over processInstance_getVariables or history_listVariableInstances, and doesn't mention error scenarios.

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