portkey-admin-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieval of analytics data but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, if there are rate limits, what the output format looks like, or if results are paginated (though page_size parameter hints at pagination). This is inadequate for a tool with 9 parameters and no annotation coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters, what the output looks like, whether results are paginated (despite having a page_size parameter), or any behavioral constraints. The description should provide more context about what 'detailed analytics data' includes and how to interpret results.

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 documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'specified time range' which aligns with the time_of_generation parameters, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 resource ('detailed analytics data about user activity'), specifying what data is included ('request counts and costs'). It distinguishes from some siblings like get_user (basic user info) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other analytics tools like get_users_analytics or get_cost_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. With many sibling analytics tools (get_cost_analytics, get_users_analytics, get_error_analytics, etc.), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over other analytics endpoints.

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