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 mentions authentication ('authenticated user') but does not cover other traits like rate limits, pagination, error handling, or response format. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in transparency.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format or error handling, which are important for a tool with no structured output or annotation support.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the inputs. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it correctly avoids redundancy. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it compensates adequately by not introducing unnecessary 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 ('Retrieves a list') and resource ('workspaces associated with the authenticated user from Asana'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'listAsanaProjects' or 'listAsanaTasks', which target different Asana resources, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 other 'listAsana' tools (e.g., 'listAsanaProjects' for projects instead of workspaces). It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, offering only basic context without usage differentiation.

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