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 mentions the action ('Retrieves') and format options, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response structure (e.g., pagination, content size). For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves behavioral traits unclear.

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 is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic action. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., authentication, errors) and output format specifics, which are important for a tool with parameters and no structured output documentation. It meets a bare minimum but has clear gaps.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (pageId and format with enum values). The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'specified format', but does not elaborate beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 ('content of a Notion page'), specifying the action and target. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'listNotionPages' or 'queryNotionDatabase', which list pages or query databases rather than retrieve specific page content.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a page ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'readNotionPage' vs. 'listNotionPages' or 'queryNotionDatabase', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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