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 indicates this is a creation tool, implying mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description adds some context by mentioning what it's not for (duplicating projects) and next steps, but lacks details on safety, performance, or error handling.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by bullet-point sections for best uses, exclusions, next steps, and related tools. Every sentence earns its place by providing actionable information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 (creation operation with 2 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description does a good job by covering purpose, usage guidelines, and context. However, it could be more complete by including details on behavioral aspects like permissions or error handling, which are important for a mutation tool without structured safety hints.

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 both parameters (name and teamId). The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new Railway project'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like project_delete, project_update, and project_list by focusing on creation rather than modification, deletion, or listing.

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, listing use cases (starting new applications, setting up development environments, creating project spaces) and exclusions (duplicating existing projects). It also suggests next steps (service_create_from_repo, service_create_from_image, database_deploy) and related tools (project_delete, project_update), offering clear alternatives and context.

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