Railway 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. It discloses that this is a deletion operation (implying destructive behavior) and mentions management contexts, but lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or error conditions. It adds some context beyond the basic action but could be more comprehensive for a destructive tool.

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 well-structured with bullet points and symbols, front-loading the core action and efficiently organizing usage guidelines, prerequisites, and alternatives. Every section adds value without 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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage, and alternatives. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like confirmation prompts or deletion effects, which could enhance completeness given the tool's complexity.

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 the single parameter 'id' documented as 'ID of the domain to delete'. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Delete a domain from a service') with the resource ('domain'), distinguishing it from siblings like domain_update (for updates) and domain_list (for listing). The title is null, so the description fully defines the purpose without redundancy.

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 explicit guidance with 'Best for' and 'Not for' sections, naming alternatives (domain_update for temporary disabling/port updates) and prerequisites (domain_list). It clearly differentiates when to use this tool versus other options in the context.

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