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 states 'Add/delete tags' implying mutation, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling (beyond the schema's 'strict' parameter), or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero 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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (mutation with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not cover behavioral aspects, parameter details beyond basics, or expected outcomes, making it incomplete for effective agent 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 50% (only 'assetId' and 'strict' have descriptions). The description adds minimal value by implying 'add' and 'delete' parameters exist, but does not explain their semantics (e.g., tag format, idempotency, interactions). With low schema coverage, it partially compensates but leaves key parameters undocumented.

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 'Add/delete tags on a specific asset' clearly states the action (add/delete) and resource (tags on a specific asset), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'put-models-tags-by-model-id' or 'put-asset-by-asset-id', which handle tags on models or general asset updates respectively, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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., asset existence), exclusions, or compare to related tools like 'get-tags' for reading tags or 'put-asset-by-asset-id' for broader asset updates, leaving usage context unclear.

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