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 'authenticated user's Microsoft Teams workspace,' which hints at authentication needs, but does not cover other critical aspects like rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what specific data is returned (e.g., channel details, team names). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the scope and context.

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 complexity is low (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and authentication context but lacks details on return format, pagination, or error behavior, which are important for a list operation. With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at what data is retrieved, but it does not, leaving gaps in completeness.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately does not mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied as it handles the lack of parameters correctly without 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 the resources ('teams and channels'), specifying the scope as 'from the authenticated user's Microsoft Teams workspace.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'listSlackChannels' or 'listLinearTeams' beyond the Microsoft Teams context, which is implied but not contrasted.

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 lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or references to sibling tools, such as contrasting with 'listSlackChannels' for different platforms or other list tools for different data types. Usage is implied by the resource type but not clearly articulated.

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