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. While 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't explicitly state whether this requires authentication, what happens if the configuration doesn't exist, whether there are rate limits, or what the response format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and scope. It's front-loaded with the main action ('Retrieve detailed information'), followed by specific examples of what's included. There's zero wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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?

For a single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what information is returned but doesn't cover response format, error conditions, or authentication requirements. The combination of no annotations and no output schema means the agent lacks important contextual information about what to expect from this tool.

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 already fully documents the single 'slug' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid slug format or provide additional examples). With complete schema coverage, the baseline 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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('detailed information about a specific configuration'), making the purpose unambiguous. It provides specific examples of what information is included (cache settings, retry policies, routing strategy). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_configs' or 'get_config_versions', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other 'get_' tools, or any context about when to retrieve a specific configuration versus listing configurations. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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