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. It only states the basic action without details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a read operation, this lack of context (e.g., whether it's public or requires authentication) is a significant gap, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without fluff. It's appropriately front-loaded and concise, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with potential complexity. It doesn't explain what 'description' includes (e.g., text, metadata, or structured data), how results are formatted, or any behavioral traits like caching or errors. This leaves the agent under-informed for proper 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters: 'modelId' as the identifier to retrieve and 'originalAssets' for returning untransformed assets. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining when to use 'originalAssets' or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the description of the given `modelId`' clearly states the action (get) and resource (description), but it's vague about what 'description' entails (e.g., metadata, text summary, or technical specs). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get-models-by-model-id' or 'get-models-examples-by-model-id', leaving ambiguity about what specific data is retrieved.

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. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for retrieving textual descriptions only, as opposed to 'get-models-by-model-id' which might return full model details. There's no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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