OPS MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only monitoring operation but doesn't specify critical details: whether it's real-time or historical, output format (e.g., metrics, alerts), authentication requirements (implied by SSH params but not stated), or potential side effects (e.g., performance impact). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 6 parameters.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese ('监控容器的资源使用情况') that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no redundant or verbose elements, making it highly concise.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., how monitoring works, output format), parameter usage, and differentiation from siblings. For a monitoring tool with SSH-related inputs, this minimal description is insufficient for effective agent use.

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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'containers' indirectly but adds no meaning beyond the schema—no explanation of what 'monitor' entails for each parameter (e.g., hostname for SSH, containers array for filtering, timeout for operation limits). This fails to address the coverage gap adequately.

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 '监控容器的资源使用情况' (Monitor container resource usage) clearly states the verb (monitor) and resource (container resource usage). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_docker_containers' (lists containers) or 'get_container_logs' (gets logs), but doesn't specify what resource metrics (e.g., CPU, memory) are monitored, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 (e.g., SSH access to a host), compare to siblings like 'check_docker_health' or 'get_memory_info', or specify use cases (e.g., real-time monitoring vs. one-time checks).

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