WayStation 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions required, rate limits, pagination for items, or what 'detailed information' includes beyond items. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 ('retrieves detailed information') and includes key details ('including its items'). There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured by separating scope from behavior.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves 'detailed information.' It doesn't specify the format or structure of the returned data, what 'items' entail, or error handling. For a read operation with rich potential output, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'boardId' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying retrieval of a 'specific' board, which is redundant with the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 verb ('retrieves') and resource ('detailed information about a specific Miro board including its items'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from sibling 'listMiroBoards' by focusing on a single board rather than listing multiple boards. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other read operations like 'readMondayBoard' or 'readNotionPage' that might have similar retrieval patterns.

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 a board ID from 'listMiroBoards'), exclusions, or comparisons to other read operations in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage context solely from the tool name and description.

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