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 implies destructive behavior through 'Delete' and mentions storage cleanup, but doesn't explicitly state whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. It adds some context about prerequisites and related tools, but lacks comprehensive behavioral details for a destructive operation.

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, Related), uses bullet points and symbols effectively, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place in guiding usage.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage guidelines, prerequisites, and related tools. However, it could be more complete by explicitly stating that deletion is permanent or mentioning authentication requirements, given the tool's complexity.

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% (the volumeId parameter is fully documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, maintaining the minimum viable level.

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 volume from a service') with the resource ('volume'), distinguishing it from siblings like volume_create, volume_list, and volume_update. It explicitly defines the tool's purpose beyond just restating the name.

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 storage, storage cleanup, resource management) and 'Not for' (temporary data removal, data backup) sections, plus prerequisites (volume_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.