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 mentions retrieving analytics but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what the return format looks like (e.g., aggregated counts, time-series data). For a tool with 21 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by explicitly mentioning filtering capabilities). Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 high complexity (21 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, behavioral constraints, or how the analytics are aggregated (e.g., daily, hourly). With no annotations to cover safety or operational aspects, the description should do more to guide the agent effectively.

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 fully documents all 21 parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying time-based filtering and user activity metrics, which is already covered in the schema (e.g., time_of_generation_min/max). 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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('user activity analytics'), specifying it shows 'active and new user counts over time'. It distinguishes from some siblings like get_user_stats or get_cost_analytics by focusing on user activity metrics, though not all sibling differences are explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_user_stats or get_request_analytics. The description implies usage for analytics over time but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and parameters alone.

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