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 states the tool returns a list with account previews and supports keyword search, but fails to address critical aspects such as pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' and 'cursor' parameters), sorting options, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and a key feature (keyword search). It's front-loaded with the main purpose, and there's no wasted verbiage. However, the second sentence could be slightly clearer in structure.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits like pagination or sorting, and output format. For a list-retrieval tool with multiple filtering and sorting options, this leaves too many gaps 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 for undocumented parameters. It only mentions the 'keyword' parameter for searching by service name, ignoring 'limit', 'cursor', 'sortBy', and 'sortOrder'. This leaves most parameters unexplained, failing to add meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 services, along with the preview of the accounts.' It specifies the verb ('Return') and resource ('services'), and mentions the inclusion of account previews. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_service_accounts' or 'get_people_accounts', which reduces clarity about its unique role.

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 minimal guidance: it mentions that services 'Can be searched by the service name by keyword,' but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_service_accounts' or 'get_people_accounts.' There's no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with little direction.

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