Sauce Labs 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 describes a read operation ('retrieve'), which implies it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't explicitly state safety aspects like read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The description adds basic operational context but lacks depth for a tool with no 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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one for the overall purpose and one for parameter details. It's front-loaded with the main function, and the parameter explanations are necessary given the lack of schema descriptions. There's minimal waste, though the structure could be slightly more polished (e.g., bullet points might improve readability).

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description does a good job of covering the essentials: purpose, parameters, and some usage context. It compensates well for the schema gaps but could improve by adding more behavioral details (e.g., error cases or performance hints) to be fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It provides detailed semantics for both parameters: 'build_source' is explained with valid values ('rdc' and 'vdc') and their meanings, and 'job_id' is described with its purpose and how to obtain it. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, effectively documenting all parameters.

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: 'Retrieve the details related to a specific build by passing its unique ID in the request.' It specifies the verb ('retrieve'), resource ('details related to a specific build'), and key input mechanism ('by passing its unique ID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_build' or 'lookup_builds', which appear to have similar functions, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 implies usage by mentioning the need for a job ID that can be obtained from the 'Get Jobs endpoint', providing some context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_build' or 'lookup_builds', nor does it provide exclusions or clear prerequisites beyond the parameters. This leaves room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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