Warpmetrics 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. It states the tool lists/retrieves labels, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's paginated, rate-limited, requires authentication, returns a specific format, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds optional filtering. It's front-loaded with the main action and efficiently conveys necessary information without redundancy or fluff.

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, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and optional filtering, but for a tool with no structured behavioral data, it should do more to explain return values, limitations, or error handling. It meets basic needs but has clear gaps in 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%, with both parameters ('from' and 'to') fully described in the schema as ISO 8601 dates for start and end. The description adds value by mentioning 'optionally filtered by date range', which contextualizes the parameters' purpose, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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', 'Retrieve') and resource ('run labels'), specifying it retrieves 'all distinct run labels for the project'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_calls' or 'list_runs' by focusing on labels rather than the runs themselves. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other label-related tools if they existed, though none are present in the sibling list.

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 optional date range filtering ('optionally filtered by date range'), which suggests when this tool might be preferred over a simpler unfiltered list. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'get_run' (which might include labels) or other list tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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