Railway MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing critical behavioral traits: it's destructive ('Delete a Railway project and all its resources'), irreversible (implied by 'Best for removing unused projects'), and has prerequisites. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth needs, but covers the essential destructive nature adequately.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections (API note, Best for, Not for, Prerequisites, Alternatives, Related), uses bullet points and symbols for readability, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 destructive nature, 1 parameter with full schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the action, when to use it, alternatives, prerequisites, and behavioral implications. For a deletion tool, this covers all necessary context without needing to detail return values.

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% for the single parameter projectId, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by contextualizing the parameter as 'ID of the project to delete' in the schema, but doesn't provide additional format examples or constraints beyond what's in the schema. It earns a 4 because it implicitly reinforces the parameter's purpose through the tool's overall 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 verb 'Delete' and resource 'Railway project and all its resources', making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like service_delete by emphasizing project-level deletion versus service-level cleanup.

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' (removing unused/cleanup projects) and 'Not for' (temporary deactivation, service-level cleanup), names alternatives (service_delete), and lists prerequisites (project_list, project_info). This gives comprehensive when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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