WayStation MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination for large projects, or what happens if the project doesn't exist. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context.

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 communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.

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?

For a retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately states what it does but lacks important context about behavior and output. It doesn't describe what 'project metadata' includes or the format/issues structure returned. Given the complexity (retrieving both metadata and all issues), more completeness would be helpful.

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% (the single parameter 'projectId' is fully described in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, but doesn't need to compensate for gaps either.

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 resources ('project metadata and all issues'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'listLinearProjects' (which lists projects) and 'readLinearIssue' (which reads a single issue), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'listLinearProjects' or 'listLinearIssues'. The description mentions retrieving 'all issues' from a project, but doesn't clarify if this is preferable to filtering issues separately or when this comprehensive retrieval is appropriate.

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