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 mentions pagination and filtering capabilities, which is helpful, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, whether results are sorted, default behavior when parameters are omitted, or what the output format looks like. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 conveys the core functionality and key features (pagination, filtering) without any redundant words. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (list operation with 3 optional parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at parameter usage but lacks details on authentication, output format, error handling, or behavioral constraints. For a tool without structured safety or output information, it should provide more contextual guidance to be fully 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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'optional pagination and workspace filtering,' which aligns with the parameters but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples beyond what the schema already specifies. With full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 providers in your Portkey organization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_provider' by indicating it returns multiple providers rather than a single one. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_workspaces' or 'list_integrations' beyond the resource type.

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 context through 'optional pagination and workspace filtering,' suggesting when these features are relevant. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_provider' for single providers or other list tools for different resources. No clear 'when-not' scenarios or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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