Sauce Labs MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Returns'), but doesn't address authentication requirements beyond the username parameter, rate limits, error conditions, or what constitutes a 'running job'. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic function.

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 three sentences: the core function, context clarification, and parameter documentation. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, though the parameter documentation could be more integrated. No wasted sentences, but minor structural improvements possible.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage but good parameter semantics in the description, plus an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. However, as a read operation with no annotations, it should ideally address more behavioral aspects like authentication scope, error handling, or what 'currently running' means temporally.

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%, but the description provides meaningful semantic context for both parameters: 'username' is described as 'The authentication username of the owner' and 'tunnel_id' as 'The unique identifier of the requested tunnel'. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover format constraints or examples.

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 specific action ('Returns the number of currently running jobs') and resource ('for the specified tunnel'), with explicit clarification that 'tunnel' refers to Sauce Connect tool usage. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_tunnel_information' or 'get_tunnels_for_user' by focusing specifically on job counts rather than general tunnel data or user tunnel lists.

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. While it clarifies the 'tunnel' context, it doesn't mention when to choose this over similar tools like 'get_job_details', 'get_recent_jobs', or 'get_real_device_jobs', nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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