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. It mentions the tool lists labels and supports optional filtering, which is basic behavioral information. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how results are returned (e.g., paginated format), or any rate limits. The description is minimally adequate but lacks depth for a tool with 5 parameters.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the core action and key optional features. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does and hints at filtering, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like pagination handling (implied by current_page/page_size parameters), authentication needs, or response format. For a list operation with filtering and pagination, more context would be helpful.

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 5 parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning filtering by workspace, organisation, or search query, which is already covered in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when the 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 verb ('List') and resource ('all prompt labels in your Portkey organization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list_* siblings like list_prompts or list_prompt_partials, which would require mentioning it specifically returns labels rather than prompts themselves.

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 implies usage through the phrase 'with optional filtering by workspace, organisation, or search query,' suggesting when you might want to use filtering parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (like get_prompt_label for a single label) or mention any prerequisites for using the filters.

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