Scenario.com 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 states 'List collections' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'team' refers to. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for a read operation with parameters.

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 is front-loaded and directly conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for its simplicity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a read operation with parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on authentication, team scope, pagination behavior, and response format. For a tool with parameters and no structured support, the description should provide more guidance to be fully helpful.

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 documentation for 'pageSize' and 'paginationToken'. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the well-documented parameters.

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 'List collections of a team' clearly states the action (list) and resource (collections), with 'of a team' providing scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-collections-by-collection-id' (specific collection) and 'post-collection' (create), but doesn't explicitly contrast with all list-type tools. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., team context), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'get-collections-by-collection-id' or other list operations. Usage is implied by the name alone, with no explicit context for selection.

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