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 a read operation ('Get details'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid ID handling), or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence directly contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately 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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on usage guidelines, behavioral details, or output expectations, which are needed for effective agent operation despite the simple schema.

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 description mentions the parameter ('by its ID'), which aligns with the single 'export_id' parameter in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the schema fully documents the parameter), the description adds minimal value beyond restating what's already in the schema, meeting the baseline score of 3.

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 details') and resource ('a specific log export by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_log_exports' or 'download_log_export', which would require mentioning it retrieves metadata rather than listing multiple exports or downloading content.

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., needing an existing export ID), contrast with 'list_log_exports' for browsing exports, or specify use cases like checking export status or retrieving metadata before downloading.

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