portkey-admin-mcp

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 export must be 'completed,' which is useful context, but doesn't cover other aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, response format, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output handling. Without annotations or an output schema, more completeness would be beneficial for effective tool 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%, with the parameter 'export_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or sourcing details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get the download URL') and resource ('for a completed log export'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_log_export' or 'list_log_exports', which likely serve different purposes related to log exports.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that the export must be completed, as implied by 'completed log export'), nor does it reference sibling tools like 'create_log_export' or 'start_log_export' for context. Usage is implied 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.