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 of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation, implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or address other behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks necessary behavioral context for a tool with no annotation support.

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 states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information with zero waste.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list format, fields included, pagination), behavioral constraints, or error handling. For a tool with no structured support beyond input schema, the description should provide more contextual information to guide effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'workspace_id' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but not additive parameter semantics.

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') and resource ('log export jobs for a workspace'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_log_export' (which likely retrieves a single export) or 'download_log_export' (which retrieves the actual data), leaving some ambiguity in 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_log_export' or 'download_log_export'. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, offering only a basic statement of functionality without usage context.

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