portkey-admin-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a list operation (implied read-only) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, permissions required, rate limits, or what happens if the prompt_id doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, efficiently lists included details without waste. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized for the tool's scope.

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 1 parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally complete but lacks depth. It specifies what details are included in the output, which helps compensate for no output schema, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like error handling or pagination, leaving gaps for a list 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%, with the single parameter 'prompt_id' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify format examples like UUID vs. slug). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 versions of a specific prompt' with specific details included (version number, description, template content, creation date). It distinguishes from general 'list_prompts' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_partial_versions' or 'list_config_versions' among siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_prompt' (which might retrieve a single version) or 'list_prompts' (which lists prompts, not versions). The description implies usage for a specific prompt but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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