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 the tool retrieves analytics data, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data format, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with 21 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 and key details without waste. Every word earns its place by specifying the data type and metrics.

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 (21 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., how data is returned, any limitations), usage guidance, and output details, making it inadequate for effective agent use despite good conciseness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 21 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying time-series output, which doesn't compensate for or clarify the complex filtering parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('cache hit rate analytics'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it returns 'time-series data' with specific metrics ('hit rate percentage, total hits, and misses over time'), unlike other analytics tools like get_cost_analytics or get_latency_analytics.

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 (e.g., get_cache_hit_latency or other analytics tools), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It states what the tool does but not when it's appropriate.

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