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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't state whether this requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing properties not mentioned, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update a volume's properties'), making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundant or verbose language.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking, especially compared to sibling tools that might have more descriptive guidance.

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 (volumeId and name) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain constraints, formats, or examples for the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Update') and resource ('a volume's properties'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like volume_create, volume_delete, and volume_list by specifying it's for updating existing volumes rather than creating, deleting, or listing them. However, it doesn't specify which properties can be updated beyond what's implied by the input schema.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing volume), exclusions (e.g., what can't be updated), or comparisons to other volume-related tools like volume_create or volume_delete. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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