get_mcp_integration_metadata

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes well beyond them by flagging that the returned instructions field is untrusted external data and warning against treating it as system instructions or following embedded commands — critical prompt-injection context — plus enumerating the returned fields.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then the untrusted-data warning, then returned fields plus the sibling alternative. Every sentence carries distinct, load-bearing information with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be detailed, yet the description helpfully summarizes them and adds the security caveat an agent genuinely needs. Nothing required to call this read-only metadata tool correctly is missing.

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 a single required param whose schema text ('The MCP integration ID or slug') fully documents it. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (the external MCP server's self-reported metadata for an integration), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_mcp_integration by noting that sibling covers the Portkey-side connection config. An agent can tell the two apart without opening a schema.

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?

Names the sibling alternative (get_mcp_integration) and the condition that selects it (Portkey-side connection config), which is clear routing guidance. It stops short of a full when-to-use/when-not matrix against the broader MCP sibling cluster, but the key disambiguation is present.

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