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. While 'Creates' correctly indicates a write/mutation operation, it lacks crucial context about permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns issue ID). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action and immediately communicates the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (return values), error conditions, authentication requirements, or how this tool relates to other Linear tools like 'updateLinearIssue' or 'listLinearIssues'. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.

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 all 7 parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond what's already in the schema - it mentions 'specified details' which aligns with the parameters but doesn't provide additional context about parameter relationships, constraints, or usage patterns.

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 Linear'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies 'with the specified details' which hints at parameter usage, but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'createLinearComment' or 'createJiraIssue' beyond the Linear platform context.

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 when to choose 'createLinearIssue' over 'createJiraIssue' or 'createAsanaTask', nor does it indicate any prerequisites or constraints beyond what's implied by the required parameters.

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