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 of behavioral disclosure. 'List all models' implies a read-only operation, but it does not specify critical behaviors like pagination handling (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 at three words, front-loading the core action ('List all models') with zero wasted text. It efficiently communicates the basic purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's function.

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 (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, auth), usage context relative to siblings, and output format. While the schema covers parameters well, the description does not compensate for missing annotations or provide sufficient guidance for effective tool selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, thoroughly documenting all 8 parameters (e.g., privacy, pageSize, collectionId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it does not mention any parameters or their interactions. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, reflecting adequate but unenhanced parameter semantics.

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 all models' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('models'), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., all models in what context?) and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get-models-by-model-id' or 'get-public-models', which offer more targeted retrieval. This makes it vague in comparison to alternatives.

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. With siblings like 'get-models-by-model-id' (for specific models), 'get-public-models' (for public models only), and 'post-search-models' (for filtered searches), there is no indication of when this broad listing tool is preferred, such as for bulk retrieval or initial exploration. This absence of context leaves usage unclear.

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