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 mutation operation (restarting implies state change), specifies use cases that imply potential service disruption ('Clearing service state', 'Resolving runtime issues'), and mentions prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly state permission requirements, rate limits, or what 'restart' entails operationally.

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 using icons and bullet points, making it easy to scan. Every sentence earns its place by providing specific guidance without redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by detailed guidance sections.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job providing context about when to use it, alternatives, prerequisites, and related tools. However, it doesn't describe what happens during the restart (downtime? graceful shutdown?) or what the response looks like, which would be helpful given the lack of output 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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (serviceId and environmentId are self-explanatory). The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 ('Restart a service') and specifies the scope ('in a specific environment'), using a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this tool from its siblings like service_update, service_delete, and deployment_trigger by explicitly stating what it's not for.

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 dedicated sections: 'Best for' lists three specific use cases, 'Not for' names three alternative tools for different scenarios, and it includes 'Prerequisites' (service_list), 'Alternatives' (deployment_trigger), and 'Related' tools. This gives comprehensive when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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