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 full burden. 'List workflows' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not stated), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. For a tool with parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps.

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 two words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While it may be too brief for completeness, it earns full marks for conciseness as every word serves a clear purpose.

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 has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the purpose of parameters like 'privacy', pagination behavior, or what the list output contains. For a list operation with filtering options, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. With moderate coverage, the baseline is 3 as the schema does most work, but the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented 'privacy' parameter or provide context on how parameters interact.

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 workflows' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('workflows'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about scope or filtering capabilities, and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-workflows-by-workflow-id' which retrieves a specific workflow. It's adequate but minimal.

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 that this lists multiple workflows while 'get-workflows-by-workflow-id' retrieves a single one, nor does it suggest usage contexts like browsing versus detailed lookup. The agent must infer usage from tool names alone.

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