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 this is a retrieval operation ('Retrieve all rate limits'), implying it's read-only, but doesn't explicitly confirm safety or lack of side effects. It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits on this endpoint itself, pagination behavior, or response format. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 two clear sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides helpful context about what rate limits are. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main action.

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?

For a simple list operation with one optional filter parameter and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but minimal. It explains what's being listed and provides basic context about rate limits. However, without annotations or output schema, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like response format, pagination, or authentication requirements that would help the agent use it correctly.

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 'workspace_id' documented as 'Filter rate limits by workspace ID'. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description, which applies here.

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 action ('Retrieve all rate limits') and resource ('in your Portkey organization'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It explains what rate limits are ('control how many requests can be made within a time window'), which helps understanding. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'get_rate_limit' tool, which appears to fetch a single rate limit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_rate_limit' (for single rate limits) or 'list_usage_limits' (for related resources). There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusion criteria. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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