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 the tool creates an issue but fails to mention critical traits like authentication requirements, potential side effects (e.g., notifications sent), error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for tool selection in an agent context.

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 creating a Jira issue (a mutation operation with 6 parameters, 4 required) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not address permissions, error cases, or what the tool returns, leaving the agent without key operational context needed for reliable 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying that 'details' correspond to the parameters, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for or enhancing the schema's information.

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') and resource ('new issue in a specified Jira project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'createLinearIssue' or 'createMondayItem', which perform similar creation operations in different systems, leaving room for potential confusion.

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, such as 'updateJiraIssue' for modifications or 'listJiraIssues' for retrieval. It lacks context about prerequisites, like needing project access or valid issue types, which could lead to misuse in an agent's workflow.

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