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 mentions 'enabled status' as part of the output, which adds some behavioral context, but fails to disclose critical traits: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation (implied by 'list'), mention pagination behavior (though parameters exist), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all models...') without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the resource, scope, and key output detail ('enabled status'), making it appropriately sized 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 no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output detail ('enabled status'), but lacks completeness for a listing tool: it doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, or error cases. With no output schema, more detail on what 'models' entail would be helpful, though the description meets a baseline for clarity.

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 documents all parameters ('slug', 'current_page', 'page_size') with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the 'slug' identifies the integration. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra details like format examples or constraints.

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 ('List') and resource ('models available for a specific integration'), specifying the scope with 'with their enabled status'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_integrations' or 'list_integration_workspaces' by focusing on models within an integration. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'update_integration_models' or 'delete_integration_model', which would make it 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing an integration slug, nor does it differentiate from similar listing tools (e.g., 'list_integrations' for broader integration info). Usage is implied by the name and description but not explicitly stated.

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