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 effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a destructive operation ('Delete'), implies permanent removal (contrasted with 'Temporary proxy disabling'), and suggests security implications. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or confirmation prompts, which would be helpful 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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by bullet points for usage guidelines and prerequisites. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (destructive deletion with one parameter) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and context well, but could improve by mentioning the irreversible nature or any confirmation steps, which are common for deletion tools.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage (proxyId is well-described), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or sourcing guidance, but it doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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 TCP proxy') and resource ('TCP proxy'), distinguishing it from siblings like tcp_proxy_create (creation) and tcp_proxy_list (listing). The title is null, but the description effectively communicates the tool's 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' (removing unused proxies, security management, endpoint cleanup) and 'Not for' (temporary proxy disabling, port updates), along with prerequisites (tcp_proxy_list) and related tools (service_update). This clearly defines when 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.