WayStation MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'creates a new record', implying a write operation, but doesn't cover permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what the response looks like (e.g., success confirmation, record ID). For a mutation tool with zero 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('creates a new record') and includes key details ('with the specified fields', 'in the given table'). There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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's complexity (a mutation with 3 required parameters, nested objects, and no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or behavioral constraints like permissions or rate limits. For a creation tool in a suite with read siblings, more context is needed to ensure proper use.

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 already documents all three parameters ('baseId', 'tableId', 'fields') with descriptions and an example for 'fields'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'specified fields' and 'given table' but no additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('creates a new record') and the resource ('in the given table'), specifying it involves 'specified fields'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'updateAirtableRecord' by focusing on creation rather than modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools (e.g., 'createAsanaTask'), though they target different platforms.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing base/table IDs from 'listAirtableBases'/'listAirtableTables'), when to choose it over 'updateAirtableRecord', or any exclusions. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context.

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