Admina 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 states it 'Returns field definitions, types, and configurations,' which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and output. It front-loads the action ('Get all custom fields') and resource, then details the return values without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, which is adequate for a simple read operation. However, it lacks context on authentication, errors, or organizational scope, which could be important for an agent to use it correctly in practice.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the output semantics. This meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters, as it adds value by explaining what the tool returns without redundant input details.

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 'Get' and the resource 'custom fields configured for an organization's devices', specifying it returns field definitions, types, and configurations. It distinguishes from siblings like get_devices (which returns devices themselves) and create/update/delete_device_custom_field (which modify fields). However, it doesn't explicitly mention it's a read-only list operation versus other retrieval tools.

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 organization context), compare to get_devices (which might include custom field values), or specify use cases like configuring device management versus viewing device data. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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