CODING DevOps 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. While '创建新项目' (create new project) implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether creation is reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens after creation. This is a significant gap for a creation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a creation tool and gets straight to the point with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 creation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'project' represents in CODING DevOps, what happens after creation, error scenarios, or provide any context about the system. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and outcomes based solely on the name and parameter schema.

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 5 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enums. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or add context about how parameters interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all 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 action ('创建新项目' - create new project) and specifies the context ('在 CODING DevOps 中' - in CODING DevOps), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_issue' or explain what distinguishes a project from other entities in the system.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when to choose this over other creation tools like 'create_issue', or any context about project lifecycle management. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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