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 the return content ('trace metadata including requests, responses, costs, and token usage') but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't disclose pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a list tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by return details. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from output.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and return content but misses key contextual elements: it doesn't explain the output format (e.g., array of objects), pagination handling, error conditions, or how filtering interacts with the parameters. For a tool with 4 parameters and complex filtering, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'optional filtering,' which is implied by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameters like 'search' or pagination usage.

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 traces in your Portkey workspace') with optional filtering. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_trace' by indicating it returns multiple traces rather than a single one. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_workspaces' or 'list_api_keys' 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 mentions 'optional filtering' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_traces' (if it existed) or other filtering methods. It doesn't specify prerequisites, such as whether authentication is required or if it's the primary way to retrieve trace data versus using analytics tools.

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