cortex-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions 'optional filters' without detailing behavioral traits. It lacks information on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what 'recent' means (e.g., time range). For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient, though it correctly implies a read-only action.

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 ('List recent analysis jobs') and adds essential context ('with optional filters'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity of a list tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or important constraints like what 'recent' entails. While the schema covers parameters, the overall context for effective tool use is lacking.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying filtering capabilities, which is already covered in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('recent analysis jobs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'cortex_get_job' (which retrieves a specific job) by indicating it lists multiple jobs. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'cortex_list_analyzers' or other list tools, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 minimal guidance with 'optional filters,' but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, prerequisites, or alternatives. It doesn't clarify when to use this versus 'cortex_get_job' for single jobs or other list tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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