WayStation MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action ('Adds') implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, whether comments are editable/deletable, or what happens on success/failure. 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 without unnecessary words. Every element ('Adds', 'plain text comment', 'Notion page') contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose, making it optimally concise.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error conditions, or response format, nor does it provide usage context. Given the tool's complexity (creating content in a third-party service), more guidance is needed to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying 'plain text' for the 'text' parameter, which aligns with the schema's 'Text content' description. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('Adds') and resource ('a plain text comment to a Notion page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'createNotionPage' by focusing specifically on comments rather than page creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other comment tools like 'createAsanaComment' or 'createLinearComment'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing page access), exclusions (e.g., not for database comments), or comparisons to similar tools like 'createAsanaComment' or 'postSlackMessage' for communication purposes.

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