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 this is a retrieval operation ('retrieve detailed information'), implying it's read-only, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the prompt_id doesn't exist. For a tool with no annotations, 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 ('retrieve detailed information about a specific prompt') and specifies what details are included. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 1 parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, as a retrieval tool with no annotations, it lacks completeness regarding behavioral aspects (e.g., error handling, response format). It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes beyond the listed elements, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage (prompt_id is fully described), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it mentions 'prompt ID or slug' but the schema already says 'Prompt ID or slug to retrieve'. No syntax, format, or validation details are added.

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 ('specific prompt') with specific details about what information is returned ('template, parameters, and version history'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_prompts' (which would list multiple prompts) by focusing on retrieving details for a single prompt. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or differentiate from other 'get_' tools like 'get_prompt_label'.

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 (like needing a prompt ID), when not to use it (e.g., for listing multiple prompts), or refer to sibling tools like 'list_prompts' or 'get_prompt_partial'. The agent must infer usage from the description alone without explicit direction.

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