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. It states 'Get embeddings' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, response format, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, 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 complexity of an embedding tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what embeddings are, how they're used, the output format, or error handling. For a tool that likely returns vector data, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 out of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description mentions 'text' but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's description for 'text'. It doesn't explain 'originalAssets' or 'dryRun', leaving them partially undocumented. With moderate schema coverage, the description provides minimal additional parameter context.

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 embeddings from text' clearly states the action (get) and resource (embeddings from text), but it's vague about what embeddings are or their purpose. It doesn't distinguish this tool from other 'post-*' inference tools like 'post-caption-inferences' or 'post-detect-inferences', which also process text or images to produce outputs.

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. With many sibling tools for different types of inferences (e.g., captioning, detection, translation), the description lacks context about specific use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to other embedding-related tools if any exist.

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