OCI MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. 'Stop a DB Node' implies a destructive operation but doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether data is preserved, or what the consequences are. The description lacks critical behavioral context for a potentially disruptive 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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and immediately communicates the essential purpose without any unnecessary elaboration.

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 operation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't address critical aspects like safety considerations, return values, error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools. The minimal description fails to provide the necessary context for safe and effective tool usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but provides no parameter information. The two parameters (db_node_id and soft) are completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description doesn't explain what 'soft' means (graceful shutdown vs forced stop) or how to identify a db_node_id, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 'Stop a DB Node' clearly states the action (stop) and target resource (DB Node), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'stop_db_system' or 'stop_instance', which perform similar stopping operations on different resources.

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 like 'stop_db_system', 'stop_instance', 'reboot_db_node', or 'reset_db_node'. There's no mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or appropriate contexts for stopping a database node versus other stopping operations.

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