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. It mentions the tool is for 'erase objects or characters,' implying a destructive/mutative operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or error handling. For a complex tool with 12 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a use case without redundancy. However, it could be more structured by explicitly stating inputs/outputs or behavioral traits, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 complexity (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return value, error conditions, or how the generative fill interacts with parameters like prompt and negativePrompt. For a tool with rich input schema but no other structured data, 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 high at 92%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds no specific parameter information beyond implying mask-based operations. It doesn't clarify parameter interactions (e.g., mask vs. maskId) or provide examples beyond the generic use case, meeting the baseline but not adding significant value.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generative fill replace the selected mask area content based on the context.' It specifies the action (replace), target (mask area), and method (generative fill based on context). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'post-inpaint-inferences' or 'post-patch-inferences' that might have similar image editing functions.

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 minimal usage guidance with 'Used to erase objects or characters,' which gives a specific use case but doesn't explain when to choose this tool over alternatives. With many sibling tools for image manipulation (e.g., post-inpaint-inferences, post-restyle-inferences), there's no explicit comparison or context for selection, leaving the agent with little direction.

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