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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns a list and allows searching by keyword, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as pagination (implied by 'limit' and 'cursor' parameters but not explained), authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 20 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

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, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and key usage. There's no wasted text, and it efficiently conveys essential information. However, it could be slightly improved by structuring it more clearly, such as separating prerequisites from functionality, but overall it's well-sized for its content.

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 (20 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and hints at two parameters but lacks details on behavior, parameter meanings, output format, and error handling. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to help an agent use the tool effectively, but it falls short, leaving many aspects unclear.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description only mentions 'serviceId' and 'keyword' parameters, adding minimal semantics for 2 out of 20 parameters. It doesn't explain the purpose or usage of other parameters like 'limit', 'cursor', 'sortBy', 'roles', 'includeDeleted', etc., failing to compensate for the low coverage. This is inadequate given the high parameter count.

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 accounts for a specific service.' It specifies the verb ('return a list') and resource ('accounts for a specific service'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_people_accounts' or 'get_identities', which might also retrieve account information, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 some usage context by mentioning that 'serviceId can be obtained from the get_services tool,' which implies a prerequisite. It also states 'Can be searched by email/name of the account by keyword,' hinting at when to use the keyword parameter. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_people_accounts' or 'get_identities,' and doesn't specify exclusions or detailed scenarios, leaving usage somewhat implied.

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