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. It mentions optional filtering but lacks details on behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format). This leaves gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 prompts') and includes key filtering options. There's no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the tool's scope without redundancy.

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 adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and filtering options but lacks details on output format, error handling, or behavioral constraints, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively in varied contexts.

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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning filtering by collection, workspace, or search query, which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional semantics like examples or edge cases. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 prompts in your Portkey organization'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_prompt_partials' or 'list_prompt_versions', which might list related but different resources, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 for listing prompts with optional filtering, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_prompt' (for a single prompt) or other list tools. There's no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context partially inferred.

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