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. It states it's a list operation (implying read-only) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, rate limits, authentication needs, or what constitutes a 'version'. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, zero waste. Every word earns its place by specifying the tool's purpose efficiently.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., version details, timestamps), behavioral constraints, or error conditions. For a tool in a complex environment with many siblings, more context is needed.

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 single parameter 'slug' documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the slug identifies a configuration, which is already covered. 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 action ('List all versions') and resource ('of a configuration') with a specific purpose ('to view its change history'). It distinguishes from general config listing tools like 'list_configs' by focusing on version history, though it doesn't explicitly mention sibling differentiation.

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 'list_configs' or 'list_prompt_versions'. The description implies usage for viewing change history but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual alternatives.

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