Vaiz MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'accessible boards' and 'current space', hinting at permission/context constraints, but doesn't disclose key behaviors like pagination, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'accessible' entails (e.g., based on user roles). The examples add some context but leave gaps for a list operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by concise examples that illustrate usage without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and there's no wasted text, making it highly efficient for an AI agent.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter use, but lacks details on return values (e.g., board structure), error handling, or dependencies like space selection. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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. It explains the optional 'projectId' parameter for filtering boards by project, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail the parameter's format (e.g., UUID), validation, or effects beyond filtering, leaving some ambiguity.

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 ('all accessible boards in the current space'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_board' (singular retrieval) and 'list_projects' (different resource). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_resources' which might include boards, so it's not a perfect 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 implies usage through examples (all boards vs. filtered by project), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_board' for a specific board or 'list_projects' for projects. No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., needing a selected space) or exclusions is provided.

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