WayStation MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'retrieves a list' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what happens if the folderId is invalid. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 ('Retrieves a list of Office documents and folders from OneDrive') and adds a useful detail ('ordered by last modified date'). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place.

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, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and ordering, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., pagination, error cases) and usage guidelines relative to siblings, which are needed for full contextual understanding.

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 parameter 'folderId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional 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 Office documents and folders from OneDrive'), specifying the ordering ('ordered by last modified date'). It distinguishes from sibling 'readOfficeDoc' (which reads content) and 'recentOfficeDocs' (which likely shows recent items without folder filtering), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'searchOfficeDocs' (which may have search capabilities).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'searchOfficeDocs' or 'recentOfficeDocs' is provided. The description implies it lists items from a specific folder or root, but doesn't clarify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to sibling tools.

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