portkey-admin-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., if UUID doesn't exist), or what 'detailed information' includes. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that fetches sensitive data like API keys.

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 action ('Retrieve detailed information') and specifies the key constraint ('by its UUID'). There is no wasted wording, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (fetching sensitive API key data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like security implications, response format, or error cases, which are critical for an agent to use this tool correctly in a real-world context.

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 'id' parameter fully documented in the schema as a UUID. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying it's for a 'specific API key', which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific API key', specifying it's by UUID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_api_keys' (which lists multiple) and 'create_api_key' (which creates new ones), making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 like 'list_api_keys' for browsing or 'update_api_key' for modifications. It lacks any context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing API key UUID, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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