portkey-admin-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, pagination behavior beyond what the schema implies, rate limits, or what the response format looks like. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic purpose.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand immediately without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It covers the basic purpose but fails to provide necessary context about behavioral aspects, response format, or usage guidance. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, the description should do more to help an agent understand how to properly use this tool.

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 three parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'specific integration' which aligns with the 'slug' parameter but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 workspaces') and the target resource ('that have access to a specific integration'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_workspaces' or 'get_workspace', which list workspaces generally or get a single workspace respectively.

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 like 'list_workspaces' or 'get_workspace_member'. It mentions the specific integration context but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage context implied rather than clearly defined.

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