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 mentions what data is retrieved but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, filtering capabilities, rate limits on the operation itself, authentication requirements, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context for a tool that likely returns multiple items.

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 tool's purpose and scope. Every word earns its place: 'Retrieve all virtual keys' establishes the action, 'in your Portkey organization' defines the scope, and 'including their usage limits, rate limits, and status' specifies the returned data. No wasted words or 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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral context that would help an agent use it effectively (e.g., pagination, ordering, error conditions). For a list operation that likely returns multiple items, more operational guidance would be beneficial despite the simple schema.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on what the tool retrieves. This meets the baseline expectation for a zero-parameter tool, though it doesn't add extra semantic value beyond the empty schema.

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 virtual keys') and resource ('in your Portkey organization'), with specific details about what information is included ('usage limits, rate limits, and status'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_virtual_key' (singular) and 'create_virtual_key', but doesn't explicitly contrast with other list operations. The purpose is specific and informative, though not fully differentiated from all 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or compare with other list tools (e.g., 'list_api_keys', 'list_usage_limits'). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone, with no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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