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 states this is a list operation, implying it is likely read-only and non-destructive, but does not confirm this or describe other traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'examples' entail (e.g., metadata, images). The description adds minimal context 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy 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 the tool's low complexity (a read operation with 2 parameters), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or error handling. Without annotations, it should provide more context (e.g., safety, response structure) to be fully helpful, but it meets the bare minimum for a simple tool.

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 description mentions the 'modelId' parameter, aligning with the input schema which has 100% coverage and describes both parameters ('modelId' and 'originalAssets'). However, it does not add meaning beyond the schema—it does not explain what 'examples' are in relation to 'originalAssets' or provide usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description does not compensate with extra insights.

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 examples of the given `modelId`' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('examples'), specifying the scope as 'all' for a given modelId. It distinguishes from general listing tools like 'get-models' by focusing on examples for a specific model, but does not explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools that might also retrieve examples in different ways (e.g., filtered examples).

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 (e.g., needing a valid modelId), exclusions (e.g., not for filtered examples), or compare to siblings like 'get-models' (general models) or 'get-models-by-model-id' (specific model details). Usage is implied by the parameter name but not explicitly stated.

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