portkey-admin-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates this is a retrieval operation ('Retrieve audit logs') and mentions filtering capabilities, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral aspects like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with large result sets. It adds some value but 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose with examples, the second lists filtering capabilities. Every word serves a purpose with zero redundancy, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 read-only tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about what audit logs contain and filtering options. However, it lacks information about response format, pagination behavior, error conditions, or data volume considerations that would be helpful given the complexity of filtering multiple dimensions without required parameters.

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, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds marginal value by listing filter types ('time range, actor, action type, and resource') which aligns with schema parameters, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 tool's purpose: 'Retrieve audit logs for your Portkey organization' with specific examples of what's tracked ('administrative actions including user management, configuration changes, and access events'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on audit logs specifically, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list_* tools.

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 implies usage context by mentioning filtering capabilities ('Supports filtering by time range, actor, action type, and resource'), suggesting this is for querying audit data. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like list_traces or other analytics tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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