list_mcp_server_connections

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: it reads live connection state, does not test upstream reachability, and explains how authentication scopes affect results. It could go further by noting possible absence of fields or pagination behavior, but the output schema likely covers the return shape.

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 sentences deliver the essential purpose, primary use case, key-scoping behavior, and a critical exclusion, all without redundancy. The most important information is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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 moderate complexity, rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: what it returns, when to use it, how auth affects results, and how it differs from related tools. No significant gap remains.

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 five parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics around user_id and workspace_id by explaining how service keys, user keys, and organisation admin keys affect filtering and requirements. This goes beyond the base 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List active connection records for one Portkey-managed MCP server', and enumerates the returned fields (user, connected state, connection timestamps). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming test_mcp_server and disconnect_mcp_server_connection.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('audit sessions or identify the user/workspace before disconnect_mcp_server_connection') and when not to ('does not test upstream server reachability (use test_mcp_server for that)'). It also provides key-scoping rules: service keys list all users, user keys default to their own user, and organisation admin keys must provide workspace_id.

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