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 describes what information is retrieved (configuration, metadata, user access details), which adds value beyond the basic 'get' operation. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant 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 conveys the tool's purpose and scope. It's front-loaded with the core action ('retrieve detailed information about a specific workspace') and adds specifics without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.

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 (1 parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage (100%), the description is adequate but has gaps. No output schema exists, so the description doesn't explain return values (e.g., format of configuration/metadata). With no annotations, it should ideally mention it's a safe read operation. It's complete enough for basic use but lacks depth for full agent understanding.

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%, with the workspace_id parameter fully documented in the schema (including where to find it). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 the resource 'workspace', specifying it provides 'detailed information about a specific workspace' including configuration, metadata, and user access details. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_workspaces (which lists multiple workspaces) by focusing on a single workspace. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_workspace_member or other get_* tools, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use get_workspace versus list_workspaces (for listing all workspaces) or get_workspace_member (for member-specific details). There's no context about prerequisites, such as needing the workspace_id from list_workspaces first. Usage is implied but not stated.

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