Admina 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 mentions filtering capabilities (role, two-factor authentication, search by service/workspace name) but lacks critical details such as pagination behavior (implied by limit/cursor parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with 12 parameters and no output schema.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first in a single sentence. The second sentence adds necessary context about peopleId sourcing and filtering options without redundancy. It efficiently uses two sentences to convey key information, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing all filterable fields.

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 complexity (12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It covers basic purpose and some filtering but misses critical behavioral aspects (e.g., pagination, response format) and leaves most parameters undocumented. For a list-retrieval tool with extensive filtering options, this lacks the completeness needed 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 'role, two-factor authentication, and searched by service name or workspace name,' which partially covers parameters like 'role,' 'twoFa,' 'keyword,' 'serviceIds,' and 'workspaceIds.' However, it omits details on 7 other parameters (e.g., 'limit,' 'cursor,' 'sortBy,' 'sortOrder,' 'licenses,' 'status'), leaving significant gaps in understanding their purposes and usage.

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 SaaS accounts belonging to a person.' It specifies the resource (SaaS accounts) and verb (return/list), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_service_accounts' or 'get_identities' beyond mentioning the latter as a source for peopleId.

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 some usage context by stating 'The peopleId can be obtained from the get_identities tool,' which implies a prerequisite. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_service_accounts' or 'get_identities,' nor does it specify exclusions or ideal scenarios for its use.

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