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 the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'job data' includes (e.g., status, metadata). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'job data' returns, how errors are handled, or usage context. For a tool in a complex server with many siblings, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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%, with one required parameter 'jobId' undocumented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics by implying 'jobId' is used to fetch data, but doesn't specify format, constraints, or examples. It doesn't compensate for the coverage gap, leaving the parameter poorly understood.

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 'Get job data by job ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('job data'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'job data' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-jobs' (which likely lists multiple jobs). It avoids tautology but lacks specificity.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone. This is a significant gap for a tool in a server with many similar-sounding siblings.

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