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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List all prompt partials') but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format looks like (e.g., pagination, fields returned), or any rate limits. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 action ('List all prompt partials') and includes the optional filtering detail without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, making it easy to parse and understand 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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter context but lacks details on behavior, output, or usage distinctions from siblings. For a basic listing tool, this is acceptable but leaves room for improvement in providing more complete guidance.

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 'collection_id' documented as 'Filter by collection ID'. The description adds value by contextualizing this as 'optional filtering by collection', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema. However, since the schema already covers the parameter well, the description only provides marginal additional semantics, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 partials in your Portkey organization'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_prompt_partial' (which retrieves a single partial) or 'list_partial_versions' (which lists versions of a partial), though the scope 'all' implies a comprehensive listing operation.

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 by mentioning optional filtering by collection, suggesting this tool is for listing prompt partials, possibly when you need to see multiple items at once. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_prompt_partial' for a single item or 'list_partial_versions' for version history, leaving the context somewhat implied rather than clearly stated.

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