WayStation MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a list, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify key aspects like whether it requires specific user permissions, how 'recently used' is determined, if there are rate limits, pagination details, or what the output format looks like (e.g., structured list, timestamps). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any redundant or verbose language. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word serves a purpose, adhering to the principle of conciseness.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate for a basic read operation but lacks depth. It doesn't explain what 'recently used' entails, potential limitations, or output details, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively in complex scenarios. However, for a straightforward list retrieval, it meets the minimum viable threshold.

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 the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids mentioning any. A baseline score of 4 is given since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't introduce unnecessary complexity.

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') and resource ('list of recently used Office documents by the user'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'listOfficeDocs' or 'searchOfficeDocs', which might offer broader or filtered document listings, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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 like 'listOfficeDocs' or 'searchOfficeDocs'. It mentions 'recently used' but doesn't define what 'recent' means (e.g., time frame, usage criteria) or specify any prerequisites, such as user authentication or access permissions, leaving the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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