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 mentions retrieval but lacks details on behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap 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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It earns its place by clearly stating the tool's function, making it appropriately sized 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 low complexity (one optional parameter) and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks completeness in areas like behavioral context and return values, which could hinder effective use by an AI agent.

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%, with the single parameter 'limit' well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 assigned to the authenticated user in Linear'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'listLinearIssues', which appears to be a broader listing tool, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'assigned to the authenticated user', which suggests when to use this tool (for personal issues) versus a general listing. However, it does not provide explicit alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use 'listLinearIssues' instead, leaving some ambiguity.

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