Railway 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. It effectively communicates that this is a destructive operation ('Delete') and provides context about when it's appropriate versus when alternatives should be used. However, it doesn't mention potential consequences like data loss, irreversible changes, or permission requirements, which would be valuable for a deletion 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 clear sections (API purpose, Best for, Not for, Prerequisites, Alternatives, Related) and uses efficient bullet points and symbols. Every sentence earns its place by providing actionable guidance without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering usage context, alternatives, and prerequisites. However, it lacks information about what happens after deletion (e.g., confirmation, cleanup of associated resources) and potential error conditions, which would be helpful given the tool's complexity and impact.

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 (projectId, serviceId) adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or where to obtain these IDs. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 service from a project') with the exact resource ('service'), distinguishing it from siblings like service_restart or service_update. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicitly provides 'Best for' scenarios (removing unused services, cleaning up test services, project reorganization) and 'Not for' cases (temporary stoppage, configuration updates) with named alternatives (service_restart, service_update). It also lists prerequisites (service_list, service_info) and related tools, offering comprehensive guidance on when and how to use this tool versus alternatives.

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