Automation Script Generator 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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions generating a file but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only or write operation, what happens if the file already exists, or any performance or error-handling traits. For a tool that likely creates files, this lack of detail on mutation behavior and potential side effects is a significant gap.

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 that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by clearly stating the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, more context on what the generated file contains or how it's used would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how parameters interact (e.g., how 'gherkin_syntax' relates to 'selectors'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Generate WDIO step definitions file with functions to execute Gherkin syntax.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('WDIO step definitions file'), and target ('functions to execute Gherkin syntax'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_feature_file' or 'process_test_scenario', which prevents a perfect score.

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, such as needing Gherkin syntax input, or when to choose this over sibling tools like 'generate_feature_file' for feature creation or 'process_test_scenario' for broader test handling. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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