Admina MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions filtering and searching capabilities but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior (implied by limit/cursor parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like. The description covers basic functionality but misses important operational context.

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 appropriately concise - two sentences that efficiently convey core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose ('Return a list of identities') followed by filtering details. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating filtering options.

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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers what the tool does at a high level but lacks details about parameter usage, return format, pagination, error conditions, and operational constraints. For a list tool with multiple filtering options, this leaves too many unknowns for effective agent use.

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. It mentions filtering by status, department, type, and keyword search by email/name, which covers 5 of 6 parameters (statuses, departments, types, keyword, plus implied limit/cursor for list operations). However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., that statuses accepts specific enum values), the meaning of 'cursor', or that 'limit' controls pagination. The description adds some meaning but leaves significant gaps.

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: 'Return a list of identities' with specific filtering capabilities (status, department, type, email/name keyword search). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_devices or get_people_accounts by focusing on identities, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The verb 'return' is appropriate for a read operation.

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 mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't indicate scenarios where this tool is preferred over other list tools (e.g., get_people_accounts) or whether there are prerequisites. Usage is implied through parameter descriptions but not explicitly stated.

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