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 states the tool updates fields but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, error handling, or what the response looks like (since there's no output schema). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (mutation with 4 required parameters, nested objects) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits, usage context, or response details, leaving the agent with insufficient information to reliably invoke the tool beyond basic parameter mapping.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (baseId, tableId, recordId, fields) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as formatting details or constraints. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition from the description.

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 ('Updates') and resource ('specified fields of an existing record in the given table'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'createAirtableRecord' by specifying it updates existing records rather than creating new ones, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other update tools like 'updateAsanaTask'.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing record ID), compare with other update tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'updateAsanaTask'), or specify use cases beyond the basic action. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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