Scenario.com MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Delete an image' implies a destructive operation, but it lacks details on permissions required, whether deletions are permanent or reversible, rate limits, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, as it doesn't inform the agent about critical behavioral aspects beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and waste-free. It directly states the action without unnecessary elaboration, which is efficient for a simple tool. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, but for this dimension alone, it scores high due to its brevity and clarity.

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 as a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what happens upon deletion, potential side effects, or return values. For a mutation tool, this lack of context leaves the agent underinformed, scoring low as it doesn't provide enough information 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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('modelId' and 'ids'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Delete an image' restates the tool name's core action ('delete') and object ('image'), making it tautological. It fails to specify that it deletes images associated with a particular model ID, which is a key detail from the input schema. While it indicates the action, it lacks specificity about the resource scope, scoring low for not distinguishing from siblings like 'delete-asset' or 'delete-models-training-images-by-model-id-and-training-image-id'.

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 does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a model ID and image IDs, or compare it to sibling tools like 'delete-asset' or 'delete-models-by-model-id'. Without any context for selection, it leaves the agent guessing, resulting in a minimal score.

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