portkey-admin-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a listing operation (implied read-only), it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like pagination behavior (though parameters exist), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response format looks like. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose and provide helpful context about collections. The first sentence states the main action, and the second adds useful clarification. No wasted words or unnecessary information.

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 listing tool with 4 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about what's being listed. However, it lacks important contextual information about response format, pagination behavior, and how this tool relates to other listing tools in the system. The absence of annotations means the description should do more to compensate.

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 fully documents all 4 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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: 'List all prompt collections in your Portkey organization' with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('prompt collections'), and provides additional context about what collections are ('group prompts by app'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'list_prompts' or 'list_prompt_partials', which would require a 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions collections 'group prompts by app', it doesn't specify when someone would need collections versus individual prompts or other list tools. No explicit when/when-not statements or alternative tool references are included.

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