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 the tool retrieves asset details, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' include. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. It is front-loaded with the essential information, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, or differentiation from siblings. While the schema covers the single parameter, the overall context for effective tool use is incomplete.

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, with the parameter 'assetId' documented as 'The asset ID to retrieve'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 details of an asset' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('asset'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get-assets-by-asset-id', which appears to serve a similar function based on the name, leaving ambiguity about when to use one over the other.

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. Given the presence of sibling tools like 'get-assets-by-asset-id' and 'get-assets', there is no indication of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for this tool, leaving usage unclear.

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