Scenario.com MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a 'Replace all' operation, which implies a destructive mutation (overwriting existing pairs), but doesn't specify critical details like whether this requires special permissions, if the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or if there are rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the key action ('Replace all training image pairs') and specifies the target ('for the given modelId'), making it highly efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 (a mutation operation with 2 parameters, 50% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, idempotency), parameter usage beyond basics, and expected outcomes. For a tool that replaces all training image pairs—a potentially significant change—more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 'modelId' has a description in the schema, while 'body' lacks one). The description mentions 'training image pairs' and implies they are provided via 'body', adding some context about what 'body' contains. However, it doesn't detail the structure or constraints of the pairs (e.g., that 'sourceId' and 'targetId' must be training assets, as noted in the schema), so it partially compensates but doesn't fully bridge the coverage gap.

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 action ('Replace all training image pairs') and the target resource ('for the given modelId'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'put-models-training-images-by-model-id-and-training-image-id' (which appears to update individual pairs) or 'post-models-training-images-by-model-id' (which likely adds pairs), leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this exact tool.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the model must exist or be in a specific state), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'post-models-training-images-by-model-id' (add) or 'delete-models-training-images-by-model-id-and-training-image-id' (remove). This lack of context makes it difficult for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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