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. It states the action ('retrieves') but lacks behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond maxResults), or what the output format looks like (e.g., list structure, fields included). The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('retrieves'), making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating the two retrieval methods for clarity.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks critical behavioral context (e.g., safety, authentication, output format) and usage guidelines. For a tool with two parameters and no structured output information, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.

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 clear documentation for both parameters (jql and maxResults). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'from a Jira project or using a JQL query,' which hints at the jql parameter's purpose but doesn't provide additional syntax or usage context. This meets the baseline of 3 since 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 ('list of issues'), specifying it's from Jira. It distinguishes from siblings like createJiraIssue (creation vs. retrieval) and readJiraProject (project vs. issues). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like listJiraProjects, though the resource type (issues vs. projects) is implied.

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 mentions two ways to retrieve issues (by project or JQL query) but doesn't specify when to choose one over the other, nor does it reference sibling tools like searchAsanaTasks or queryNotionDatabase for comparison. There's no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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