list_mcp_server_connections

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds useful behavioral details: it reads live connection state, lists fields returned, and explicitly excludes upstream reachability testing. It also explains permission scoping for different API key types, which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, then covers use cases, access control, and limitations in just three sentences. Every sentence contributes unique value with no repetition of schema details.

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 output schema exists and annotations convey safety, the description is complete: it covers what is returned, when to use it, who can use it with which key types, and what it does not do. There are no significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke this tool 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?

The schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with defaults and filtering semantics. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that service keys can list all users, user keys default to their own user, and org admin keys must provide workspace_id—this supplements the raw schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List active connection records for one Portkey-managed MCP server,' including user, connected state, and timestamps. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_mcp_servers and test_mcp_server, which cover different server details or connectivity.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('audit sessions or identify the user/workspace before disconnect_mcp_server_connection') and provides an alternative for a different need: 'does not test upstream server reachability (use test_mcp_server for that).' It also clarifies key-scope behavior (service keys vs. user keys, org admin workspace_id requirement).

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