Ludus FastMCP

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 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, hinting at permission requirements, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., impact on VM state, network changes), error handling, or rate limits. The phrase 'Power on result' is vague about output behavior.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. However, the 'Returns' line ('Power on result') is overly vague and could be more informative without adding length.

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, 0% schema coverage, and a potentially complex operation (powering on multiple VMs), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on input validation, error conditions, output structure (despite having an output schema), and how it interacts with sibling tools. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but other gaps remain significant.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that user_id is 'Optional user ID (admin only)', providing context on permissions and optionality, but does not explain what 'range' means, how VMs are identified, or the format/validation for user_id. One parameter is partially documented, but key semantics are missing.

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 ('Power on') and target ('all VMs in the range'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'batch_power_on_hosts' or 'power_off_range', leaving some ambiguity about scope or granularity.

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 (e.g., 'batch_power_on_hosts' or 'power_off_range'), nor does it mention prerequisites, dependencies, or contextual constraints. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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