OCI 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 states the tool 'will initialize or reinitialize OCI clients with the selected profile,' which implies a state-changing operation but doesn't clarify critical aspects like whether this affects all subsequent calls, if it requires specific permissions, or if there are side effects (e.g., invalidating existing clients). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized: it starts with a clear purpose statement, then details the parameter with an example. Both sentences earn their place by adding value. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the example into the main text, but overall it's efficient without being sparse.

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 moderate complexity (a state-setting operation with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks details on behavioral implications, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools. For a tool that likely influences many other operations, more context would be beneficial.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: it explains that 'profile_name' is the 'Name of the profile to activate' and provides examples ('e.g., "DEFAULT", "production"'). Since schema description coverage is 0% and there's only one parameter, this effectively compensates for the schema's lack of documentation, making the parameter's purpose clear.

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 tool's purpose: 'Set the active OCI profile to use for API calls.' It specifies the verb ('Set') and resource ('active OCI profile'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'get_current_oci_profile' beyond the obvious read/write distinction, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 profile), when it's appropriate (e.g., before making API calls), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'list_oci_profiles' or 'get_current_oci_profile'. This lack of context leaves the agent guessing about optimal usage scenarios.

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