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 for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'retrieves' (implying read-only) and hints at pagination behavior, it doesn't disclose important traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. For a read operation with 7 parameters, this leaves significant 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 purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no wasted verbiage. It could potentially be slightly more structured by separating core purpose from optional features, but it's already quite lean.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how pagination works in practice, what authentication is required, or any error handling. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects despite the tool's complexity.

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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'optional filtering and pagination' which corresponds to filterByFormula and pageSize/offset parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantic context. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Retrieves records') and resource ('from the specified table'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list/query tools in the sibling set (like listAirtableBases or listAirtableTables), which would require explicit differentiation to earn a 5.

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 mentions 'optional filtering and pagination' which provides some context about capabilities, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like queryNotionDatabase or searchAsanaTasks. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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