portkey-admin-mcp

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 that prompts are 'versioned,' which hints at immutability or revision tracking, but fails to cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether creation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a creation tool with 12 parameters, this lack of operational context is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Create a new prompt template in Portkey') and adds essential context ('versioned message templates with variable substitution support') without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (12 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the creation process, expected outputs, error handling, or how parameters like 'virtual_key' and 'collection_id' interrelate. For a tool with such rich input schema and no behavioral annotations, more contextual detail is needed to guide effective 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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 12 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying that 'string' uses '{{variable}} mustache syntax,' which is already covered in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter interactions or 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 action ('Create a new prompt template') and resource ('in Portkey'), specifying that prompts are 'versioned message templates with variable substitution support.' This distinguishes it from generic creation tools but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling prompt-related tools like 'create_prompt_label' or 'create_prompt_partial.'

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_prompt' or 'create_prompt_partial,' nor are prerequisites or context for usage mentioned. The description assumes the user knows when prompt creation is appropriate without offering any decision criteria.

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