Railway MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with well-defined boundaries, as indicated by their detailed 'Best for' and 'Not for' sections that help prevent misselection. However, there is some potential overlap between deployment_trigger and service_restart, or between variable_set and variable_bulk_set, which could cause minor confusion despite the guidance provided.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, such as project_list, service_create_from_repo, and deployment_logs. All tools use snake_case uniformly, with no mixing of conventions, making the naming predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count2/5
With 36 tools, the count is excessive for a Railway management server, making it feel heavy and potentially overwhelming for agents. While the domain is broad, many tools could be consolidated or streamlined, as typical well-scoped servers have 3-15 tools, and this exceeds that range significantly.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for Railway's domain, including full CRUD operations for projects, services, deployments, domains, variables, volumes, and TCP proxies. There are no obvious gaps, and the tools support complete workflows from setup to management and cleanup.
Average 4.3/5 across 36 of 36 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves in practice.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all environments in a project') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is minimal but incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., read-only nature, data format), usage context, and output expectations. While concise, it doesn't provide enough information for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation without relying heavily on the schema alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'projectId' clearly documented as 'ID of the project'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints on the ID format. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('environments in a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'project_list' (which lists projects) and 'project_info' (which gets details of a single project). However, it doesn't specify the scope (e.g., 'all' is implied but not emphasized) or differentiate from potential environment-specific tools that might exist elsewhere.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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., needing a valid projectId), exclusions (e.g., not for creating or modifying environments), or comparisons with siblings like 'deployment_list' or 'service_list' that might relate to environments. Usage is implied by the action 'List' but lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't state whether this requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing properties not mentioned, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update a volume's properties'), making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundant or verbose language.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking, especially compared to sibling tools that might have more descriptive guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 both parameters (volumeId and name) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain constraints, formats, or examples for the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('a volume's properties'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like volume_create, volume_delete, and volume_list by specifying it's for updating existing volumes rather than creating, deleting, or listing them. However, it doesn't specify which properties can be updated beyond what's implied by the input schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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., needing an existing volume), exclusions (e.g., what can't be updated), or comparisons to other volume-related tools like volume_create or volume_delete. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is for authentication configuration and is 'only needed if not set in environment variables', adding useful context about prerequisites. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and concise, using bullet points and symbols (✓, ×, →) to organize information efficiently. Every sentence earns its place by providing purpose, usage guidelines, and next steps without unnecessary fluff, making it easy to scan and understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and exclusions well. However, it lacks details on behavioral outcomes (e.g., what happens after configuration, error cases), which would be beneficial for full completeness in the absence of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema fully documenting the 'token' parameter. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Configure the Railway API token for authentication' with the specific verb 'configure' and resource 'Railway API token'. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating what it's not for (e.g., project configuration, service settings), making it distinct from tools like project_create or service_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidelines: 'Best for: Initial setup, Token updates, Authentication configuration' and 'Not for: Project configuration, Service settings, Environment variables'. It also suggests 'Next steps: project_list, service_list' and 'Related: project_create', offering clear alternatives and context for when to use this tool versus others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies this is a read-only operation ('Check'), but doesn't explicitly state whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the response format looks like. The description adds some context about what it's not for, but lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling or output structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by best use cases, exclusions, prerequisites, next steps, and related tools. Each section is concise and adds value, with no wasted sentences or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and contextual relationships effectively. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format or error conditions, which would be helpful since no output schema is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'deploymentId' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain where to get the deploymentId or format details). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('current status of a deployment'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like deployment_list (which lists deployments) and deployment_logs (which provides logs), making it evident this is a status-checking operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Best for: Monitoring deployment progress, Verifying successful deployments, Checking for deployment failures') and when not to use it ('Not for: Service runtime logs, Database logs'). It also lists prerequisites (deployment_list, deployment_trigger), next steps (deployment_logs), and related tools (service_info, service_restart, deployment_wait), offering comprehensive context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks domain availability but does not specify error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'available for use' entails (e.g., registration status, cost implications). This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by bullet points for usage guidelines and related tools. Every sentence earns its place by providing clear, actionable information without redundancy or unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema) and the description's clear purpose and usage guidelines, it is mostly complete. However, the lack of behavioral details (e.g., error cases, response format) and no output schema means some context is missing, preventing a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'domain' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation rules, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('domain availability'), and it distinguishes this tool from siblings by explicitly naming its function. The title 'domain_check' aligns perfectly with the described functionality, avoiding tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidelines with a 'Best for' section listing specific scenarios (validating availability, pre-deployment checks, domain planning) and mentions 'Next steps: domain_create' and 'Related: domain_list', clearly indicating when to use this tool versus alternatives in the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation through 'List' and 'Viewing', but doesn't explicitly state if it's safe, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. It adds some context about prerequisites and next steps, but lacks detailed behavioral traits like pagination or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with bullet points and arrows for easy scanning, front-loading the core purpose. Every section (Best for, Prerequisites, Next steps, Related) adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and readable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (listing domains with 3 required parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and relationships well, but could improve by adding details on return format or behavioral constraints. The high schema coverage helps compensate for gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 three parameters (projectId, environmentId, serviceId). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'all domains (both service and custom) for a service', specifying the scope. It distinguishes from siblings like domain_create, domain_update, and domain_delete by focusing on listing rather than modifying domains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance with 'Best for' sections (viewing endpoints, managing configurations, auditing settings), prerequisites (service_list), next steps (domain_create, domain_update), and related tools (service_info, tcp_proxy_list). This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 mentions that domain names cannot be changed (requiring delete and recreate) and excludes TCP proxy configuration, adding useful constraints. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'updating domain settings' entails beyond target ports, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by bullet-pointed guidelines and related steps. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to scan for key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and exclusions well, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like side effects or return values, which would be needed for full completeness in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 both parameters (id and targetPort) fully. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('domain's configuration'), distinguishing it from siblings like domain_create, domain_delete, and domain_list. It explicitly mentions what can be updated (target ports, settings, endpoints), providing a focused scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance with 'Best for' and 'Not for' sections, naming specific use cases (changing target ports, updating settings) and exclusions (changing domain names, TCP proxy configuration). It also lists prerequisites (domain_list) and related tools (service_update), offering clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's purpose and context but lacks details on behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. The description doesn't contradict any annotations (since none exist), but it doesn't fully compensate for the missing annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by organized sections (Best for, Prerequisites, Next steps, Related). Every sentence earns its place by providing actionable information without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description does a good job covering usage context, prerequisites, and related tools. However, it doesn't describe the return format or behavioral aspects like pagination, which would be helpful for a list operation. The completeness is strong but not perfect for a tool with no structured output documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context about the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('List all environment variables for a service') with the resource ('service'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like variable_bulk_set or variable_delete. It explicitly mentions the scope ('for a service') and provides a clear verb+resource combination.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance with 'Best for' use cases (viewing configuration, auditing, checking connection strings), prerequisites ('service_list'), next steps ('variable_set, variable_delete'), and related tools ('service_info, variable_bulk_set'). This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates this is a creation tool, implying mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description adds some context by mentioning what it's not for (duplicating projects) and next steps, but lacks details on safety, performance, or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by bullet-point sections for best uses, exclusions, next steps, and related tools. Every sentence earns its place by providing actionable information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (creation operation with 2 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description does a good job by covering purpose, usage guidelines, and context. However, it could be more complete by including details on behavioral aspects like permissions or error handling, which are important for a mutation tool without structured safety hints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 both parameters (name and teamId). The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new Railway project'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like project_delete, project_update, and project_list by focusing on creation rather than modification, deletion, or listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance with 'Best for' and 'Not for' sections, listing use cases (starting new applications, setting up development environments, creating project spaces) and exclusions (duplicating existing projects). It also suggests next steps (service_create_from_repo, service_create_from_image, database_deploy) and related tools (project_delete, project_update), offering clear alternatives and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool lists projects but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. While it hints at management use, it lacks operational details needed for full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, best for, next steps, related), but includes an emoji and formatting that slightly reduces efficiency. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value, though it could be more streamlined.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good usage context but lacks details on behavior (e.g., response format, errors) and operational constraints. For a list tool with no structured data, it's adequate but has gaps in completeness for agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate, but since there are no params, it doesn't compensate for any gaps. Baseline is 4 as per rules for 0 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('List all projects') and resource ('in your Railway account'), distinguishing it from siblings like project_info (detailed info), project_create (creation), and project_delete (deletion). The purpose is unambiguous and directly addresses what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance with 'Best for' scenarios (overview, finding IDs, discovery/management) and 'Next steps' (project_info, service_list) and 'Related' tools (project_create, project_delete), clearly indicating when to use this tool versus alternatives for specific needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a write operation ('Create') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description adds some context (e.g., prerequisites, alternatives) but lacks details on mutation effects or error handling, leaving gaps for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with bullet points and symbols (✓, ×, →), making it easy to scan. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently organized into sections (Best for, Not for, Prerequisites, etc.), with no wasted sentences—each adds value to usage understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (creating a service from an image) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description does well by covering usage scenarios, prerequisites, and alternatives. However, it doesn't fully address behavioral aspects like mutation risks or response format, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer, though it's mostly complete for decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 parameters (projectId, image, name). The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate with extra semantic details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the action ('Create a new service') and the resource type ('from a Docker image'), making the purpose clear and specific. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'database_deploy' and 'service_create_from_repo' by specifying it's for Docker image-based services, not standard databases or GitHub repos.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance with 'Best for' and 'Not for' sections, naming specific alternatives ('database_deploy', 'service_create_from_repo') and use cases (e.g., custom database deployments, pre-built containers). It also lists prerequisites ('project_list') and next steps, offering comprehensive usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 indicates this is a read operation ('List all TCP proxies') and suggests it's for viewing/auditing purposes, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what format the returned data takes. It provides basic context but lacks detailed behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first line. The bullet-point format for 'Best for', prerequisites, next steps, and related tools is efficient and organized. Every section adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only listing tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good context about purpose, usage scenarios, prerequisites, and related tools. However, without annotations or output schema, it doesn't describe the return format or data structure, which leaves some gaps in completeness for an API tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (environmentId and serviceId). The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('List all TCP proxies') with the target resource ('for a service in a specific environment'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like tcp_proxy_create and tcp_proxy_delete. It explicitly identifies the scope of listing proxies for a service within an environment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Best for: Viewing TCP proxy configurations, Managing external access, Auditing service endpoints'), prerequisites ('Prerequisites: service_list'), next steps ('Next steps: tcp_proxy_create'), and related tools ('Related: domain_list, service_info'). It clearly differentiates this listing tool from creation/deletion alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 destructive behavior through 'Delete' and mentions storage cleanup, but doesn't explicitly state whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. It adds some context about prerequisites and related tools, but lacks comprehensive behavioral details for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (API purpose, Best for, Not for, Prerequisites, Related), uses bullet points and symbols effectively, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place in guiding usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage guidelines, prerequisites, and related tools. However, it could be more complete by explicitly stating that deletion is permanent or mentioning authentication requirements, given the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the volumeId parameter is fully documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, maintaining the minimum viable level.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Delete a volume from a service') with the resource ('volume'), distinguishing it from siblings like volume_create, volume_list, and volume_update. It explicitly defines the tool's purpose beyond just restating the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance with 'Best for' (removing unused storage, storage cleanup, resource management) and 'Not for' (temporary data removal, data backup) sections, plus prerequisites (volume_list) and related tools (service_update). This clearly defines when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read operation ('Get logs'), used for debugging/monitoring, with specific exclusions (not for service/database logs). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like log format, pagination beyond the limit parameter, or error conditions, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with bullet points and arrows for readability, and every section (purpose, guidelines, prerequisites) adds value. It could be slightly more concise by combining some elements, but it's efficiently organized without wasted sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and exclusions. It mentions prerequisites and related tools, which helps contextualize the tool. However, it lacks details on return values (e.g., log format, structure) and error handling, leaving some gaps for a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (deploymentId and limit). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints on limit values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get logs') and resource ('for a specific deployment'), distinguishing it from siblings like deployment_status (which provides status, not logs) or service_info (which provides service details, not deployment logs). The title is null, but the description fully compensates with precise verb+resource specification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance with 'Best for' (debugging, monitoring, checking build output) and 'Not for' (service runtime logs, database logs), plus clear prerequisites (deployment_list), next steps (deployment_status), and related tools (service_info, deployment_trigger). This comprehensively tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses that this is a mutation tool ('Update'), mentions prerequisites and next steps, and clarifies exclusions. However, it doesn't detail behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, or whether changes are reversible, which would be valuable for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Best for, Not for, Prerequisites, Next steps, Related) and uses bullet points for readability. It's appropriately sized, but some sections (like 'Related') could be more concise or integrated into the 'Not for' guidance to reduce redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (10 parameters, mutation tool) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and exclusions. However, it could better address behavioral aspects like error handling or response format, which are important for a configuration update tool with many optional parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('service's configuration'), and it distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming alternatives for excluded use cases (variable_set, service_restart, deployment_trigger). The title is null, but the description fully compensates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use ('Best for: Changing service settings, Updating resource limits, Modifying deployment configuration') and when not to use ('Not for: Updating environment variables, Restarting services, Triggering new deployments'), with named alternatives for each exclusion. It also lists prerequisites (service_list, service_info) and next steps (deployment_trigger).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes what the tool does (deploying databases with best practices), its scope (standard deployments with security defaults), and limitations (not for custom versions or complex configurations). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like resource consumption, deployment time, or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (workflow label, best for, not for, prerequisites, alternatives, next steps, related tools). Every sentence earns its place by providing actionable guidance without redundancy. The use of symbols (⚡️, ✓, ⚠️, ×, →) enhances readability while maintaining brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (database deployment tool with 5 parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description does a good job covering usage context, limitations, and workflow integration. However, it doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, service ID, error details), which is a gap since there's no output schema to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context for the enums). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('deploy a pre-configured database') and resources ('using Railway's official templates and best practices'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it's for database deployments rather than general services or other operations like project management or variable handling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use ('Best for: Standard database deployments, Quick setup with security defaults, Common database types') and when not to use ('Not for: Custom database versions, Complex configurations, Unsupported database types'). It also names specific alternatives ('Alternatives: service_create_from_image') and prerequisites ('Prerequisites: database_list_types'), making it highly actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool's function (list deployments) and scope (recent, for a service in an environment), but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like pagination behavior (though limit parameter is documented in schema), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description adds some context but leaves gaps for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (API tag, purpose, best for, prerequisites, next steps, related tools). Every sentence earns its place - the bullet points efficiently convey usage context without redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only list tool with 4 parameters (3 required) and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It covers purpose, usage scenarios, prerequisites, and relationships to other tools. The main gap is lack of output format information (no output schema exists), but otherwise it's quite complete for this tool type.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 parameters. The description adds value by mentioning 'recent deployments' (which relates to the limit parameter's default of 10) and noting that environmentId is 'usually obtained from service_list'. This provides useful context beyond the schema's technical descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb ('List') and resource ('recent deployments for a service in a specific environment'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like deployment_logs (which shows logs) and deployment_trigger (which initiates deployments). The title is null, so the description fully defines the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance with 'Best for' section (viewing deployment history, monitoring service updates), prerequisites (service_list), next steps (deployment_logs, deployment_trigger), and related tools (service_info, service_restart). This gives clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively communicates this is a deployment-triggering action (implying a write/mutation operation), specifies use cases and exclusions, and provides workflow context through prerequisites and next steps. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions, but offers substantial behavioral guidance beyond basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with clear sections (purpose, best for, not for, prerequisites, alternatives, next steps, related tools). Every sentence earns its place by providing distinct value, with no redundant information. The bullet-point format enhances readability while maintaining compactness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It clearly explains what the tool does, when to use it, what not to use it for, prerequisites, alternatives, and next steps. The only gap is the lack of information about return values or error conditions, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 four parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (projectId, serviceId, environmentId, commitSha). It provides excellent usage context but no additional parameter semantics, meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Trigger a new deployment') and resource ('for a service'), distinguishing it from siblings like service_restart and service_update. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides 'Best for' scenarios (deploying code changes, applying configuration updates, rolling back) and 'Not for' exclusions with named alternatives (service_restart, service_update). It also lists prerequisites (service_list), alternatives (service_restart), next steps (deployment_logs, deployment_status), and related tools, offering comprehensive guidance on when and how to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a deletion operation (implying destructive behavior) and mentions management contexts, but lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or error conditions. It adds some context beyond the basic action but could be more comprehensive for a destructive tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with bullet points and symbols, front-loading the core action and efficiently organizing usage guidelines, prerequisites, and alternatives. Every section adds value without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage, and alternatives. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like confirmation prompts or deletion effects, which could enhance completeness given the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'ID of the domain to delete'. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Delete a domain from a service') with the resource ('domain'), distinguishing it from siblings like domain_update (for updates) and domain_list (for listing). The title is null, so the description fully defines the purpose without redundancy.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance with 'Best for' and 'Not for' sections, naming alternatives (domain_update for temporary disabling/port updates) and prerequisites (domain_list). It clearly differentiates when to use this tool versus other options in the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 clearly indicates this is a read-only operation ('Get detailed information'), which is appropriate for an info-retrieval tool. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by organized sections (Best for, Prerequisites, Next steps, Related). Every sentence earns its place by providing specific guidance without redundancy. The use of symbols (⚡️, ✓, →) enhances readability without adding fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, read-only operation) and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It provides excellent usage guidance and purpose clarity. However, without annotations or an output schema, it could benefit from mentioning what kind of detailed information is returned (e.g., project metadata, environment details, service configurations) to fully compensate for the lack of structured output documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the single parameter 'projectId' is fully described in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, but it doesn't need to since the schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific Railway project'). It distinguishes from siblings like project_list (which lists projects) and project_update/project_delete (which modify projects) by focusing on retrieving details for a single project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Best for: Viewing project details and status, Checking environments and services, Project configuration review'), prerequisites ('Prerequisites: project_list'), next steps ('Next steps: service_list, variable_list'), and related alternatives ('Related: project_update, project_delete'). This covers both when-to-use and when-not-to-use scenarios effectively.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It effectively communicates this is a creation/mutation tool (implied by 'Create'), specifies it's for GitHub-hosted projects, and mentions build processes. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits that would be valuable for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Best for, Not for, Prerequisites, Alternatives, Next steps, Related). Every sentence earns its place by providing actionable guidance without redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose immediately stated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering usage context, alternatives, and workflow integration. However, it lacks information about what the tool returns (output format) and doesn't fully address behavioral aspects like error conditions or side effects that would be important for a mutation operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions GitHub repositories generally but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details for the repo parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a new service from a GitHub repository, specifying both the action (create) and resource (service from repo). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like service_create_from_image and database_deploy, making the purpose specific and differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance with 'Best for' and 'Not for' sections, naming specific alternatives (service_create_from_image, database_deploy). It also lists prerequisites (project_list) and next steps (variable_set, service_update), giving comprehensive context for when to use this tool versus others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively communicates that this is a destructive operation ('Delete') and provides context about when it's appropriate versus when alternatives should be used. However, it doesn't mention potential consequences like data loss, irreversible changes, or permission requirements, which would be valuable for a deletion tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (API purpose, Best for, Not for, Prerequisites, Alternatives, Related) and uses efficient bullet points and symbols. Every sentence earns its place by providing actionable guidance without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering usage context, alternatives, and prerequisites. However, it lacks information about what happens after deletion (e.g., confirmation, cleanup of associated resources) and potential error conditions, which would be helpful given the tool's complexity and impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 both parameters (projectId, serviceId) adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or where to obtain these IDs. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Delete a service from a project') with the exact resource ('service'), distinguishing it from siblings like service_restart or service_update. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides 'Best for' scenarios (removing unused services, cleaning up test services, project reorganization) and 'Not for' cases (temporary stoppage, configuration updates) with named alternatives (service_restart, service_update). It also lists prerequisites (service_list, service_info) and related tools, offering comprehensive guidance on when and how to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes the tool's purpose as a read-only informational tool ('Get detailed information'), which implies non-destructive behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by organized sections (Best for, Prerequisites, Next steps, Related). Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 required parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description provides strong contextual guidance on usage, prerequisites, and next steps. However, it doesn't describe the return format or potential error cases, which would be helpful for a tool with no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation. However, it doesn't compensate for any gaps since there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific service'). It distinguishes from siblings like service_list (which lists services) and service_update (which modifies services) by focusing on retrieving detailed information for a single service.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Best for: Viewing service configuration and status, Checking deployment details, Monitoring service health'), prerequisites ('Prerequisites: service_list'), next steps ('Next steps: deployment_list, variable_list'), and related alternatives ('Related: service_update, deployment_trigger'). This comprehensive guidance helps the agent choose this tool appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It effectively communicates this is a read operation (list, overview, check status) and implies it returns service IDs and status information. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond the prerequisite.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with clear sections (purpose, best for, prerequisites, next steps, related). Every sentence earns its place by providing distinct value: the first states the core function, the bullet points provide usage guidance, and the arrows indicate workflow context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool returns (overview, IDs, status) and how it fits into workflows. It could be more complete by explicitly stating the return format or any limitations, but it covers the essential context well given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'projectId' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb ('List') and resource ('services in a specific Railway project'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for getting an overview, finding IDs, and checking status. This is more specific than just 'list services' and differentiates from tools like service_info or deployment_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance with 'Best for' section listing three specific use cases, prerequisites (project_list), next steps (service_info, deployment_list), and related tools (project_info, variable_list). This gives clear context on when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively communicates that this is a mutation operation (restarting implies state change), specifies use cases that imply potential service disruption ('Clearing service state', 'Resolving runtime issues'), and mentions prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly state permission requirements, rate limits, or what 'restart' entails operationally.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections using icons and bullet points, making it easy to scan. Every sentence earns its place by providing specific guidance without redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by detailed guidance sections.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job providing context about when to use it, alternatives, prerequisites, and related tools. However, it doesn't describe what happens during the restart (downtime? graceful shutdown?) or what the response looks like, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (serviceId and environmentId are self-explanatory). The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Restart a service') and specifies the scope ('in a specific environment'), using a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this tool from its siblings like service_update, service_delete, and deployment_trigger by explicitly stating what it's not for.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance with dedicated sections: 'Best for' lists three specific use cases, 'Not for' names three alternative tools for different scenarios, and it includes 'Prerequisites' (service_list), 'Alternatives' (deployment_trigger), and 'Related' tools. This gives comprehensive when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively indicates this is a creation/mutation tool (implied by 'Create'), specifies use-case constraints (e.g., not for HTTP/HTTPS), and mentions prerequisites and related tools. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, which are important for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by organized sections (Best for, Not for, Prerequisites, etc.). Every sentence earns its place by providing actionable guidance without redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a creation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description does an excellent job covering purpose, usage, and context. It compensates well for the lack of structured fields by providing rich guidance. A slight deduction because it doesn't detail output format or error scenarios, which would be helpful for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Create a new TCP proxy') and resource ('for a service'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like domain_create (for HTTP/HTTPS) and tcp_proxy_list (for listing). It explicitly defines the tool's scope and differentiates it from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance with 'Best for' and 'Not for' sections, naming specific use cases (database access, external connections) and exclusions (HTTP/HTTPS endpoints, internal communication). It also lists prerequisites (service_list), alternatives (domain_create), and next steps (tcp_proxy_list), offering comprehensive usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a destructive operation ('Delete'), implies permanent removal (contrasted with 'Temporary proxy disabling'), and suggests security implications. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or confirmation prompts, which would be helpful for a deletion tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by bullet points for usage guidelines and prerequisites. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive deletion with one parameter) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and context well, but could improve by mentioning the irreversible nature or any confirmation steps, which are common for deletion tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage (proxyId is well-described), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or sourcing guidance, but it doesn't need to compensate for gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Delete a TCP proxy') and resource ('TCP proxy'), distinguishing it from siblings like tcp_proxy_create (creation) and tcp_proxy_list (listing). The title is null, but the description effectively communicates the tool's purpose without redundancy.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance with 'Best for' (removing unused proxies, security management, endpoint cleanup) and 'Not for' (temporary proxy disabling, port updates), along with prerequisites (tcp_proxy_list) and related tools (service_update). This clearly defines when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a mutation tool (create/update), it handles bulk operations, and it requires prerequisites (service_list). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like overwriting existing variables, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by organized sections (Best for, Not for, Prerequisites, etc.). Every sentence earns its place by providing actionable guidance without redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description does a good job of covering usage scenarios, prerequisites, and alternatives. However, it lacks details on return values or error handling, which could be important for a bulk operation tool. It's mostly complete but has minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the format of 'variables' or how 'serviceId' affects updates). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create or update multiple environment variables at once.' It specifies both the verb (create/update) and resource (environment variables), and explicitly distinguishes it from its sibling 'variable_set' by emphasizing bulk operations versus single updates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Best for: Migrating configuration, Initial service setup, Bulk configuration updates') and when not to use it ('Not for: Single variable updates, Temporary configuration changes'). It also lists prerequisites (service_list), alternatives (variable_set), next steps (deployment_trigger, service_restart), and related tools (variable_list, service_update), offering comprehensive usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively explains the tool's workflow nature, migration use cases, and constraints (not for single updates or temporary changes). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, which would be valuable for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with bullet points, icons, and clear sections, making it easy to scan. Every sentence earns its place by providing distinct value (purpose, guidelines, prerequisites, alternatives, next steps), with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering purpose, usage context, and workflow integration. It compensates well for the lack of structured fields, though it could benefit from mentioning response format or error cases to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify how 'serviceId' affects copying or the implications of 'overwrite'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('copy variables') and resources ('from one environment to another'), distinguishing it from siblings like variable_set (single updates) and variable_bulk_set (bulk setting). The [WORKFLOW] tag further clarifies its scope as a multi-step operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance with 'Best for' and 'Not for' sections, naming specific alternatives (variable_set) and prerequisites (service_list). It also lists related tools (variable_list, service_update) and next steps (deployment_trigger, service_restart), offering comprehensive context for when to use this tool versus others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses this is a destructive operation ('Delete'), implies security implications ('Security cleanup'), and mentions prerequisites and dependencies. However, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behaviors, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections (API action, Best for, Not for, Prerequisites, Next steps, Related), using symbols for visual clarity. Every sentence earns its place—no redundant information, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage guidelines, and dependencies. However, it lacks details on return values or error handling, which would be helpful given the tool's complexity. Sibling context is adequately addressed through related tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions 'service in a specific environment' and 'shared variable' context, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Delete a variable for a service in a specific environment'), identifies the resource (variable), and distinguishes it from siblings like variable_set (create/update) and variable_list (read). The title is null, so the description fully carries the purpose definition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides 'Best for' scenarios (removing unused configuration, security cleanup, configuration management) and 'Not for' cases (temporary variable disabling, bulk variable removal), plus prerequisites (service_list) and next steps (deployment_trigger, service_restart). This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like variable_bulk_set for bulk operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool can create or update variables, mentions use cases like managing secrets, and implies it's for persistent changes (not temporary). However, it doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, or error behaviors, which are gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with bullet points and icons, front-loading the core purpose and efficiently organizing usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage, and relationships. However, as a mutation tool, it lacks details on behavioral traits like side effects or error handling, which would improve completeness for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 5 parameters. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Create or update') and resource ('environment variable'), distinguishing it from siblings like variable_bulk_set (for bulk updates) and variable_delete. The title is null, so the description fully defines the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance with 'Best for' and 'Not for' sections, naming alternatives (variable_bulk_set), prerequisites (service_list), and related tools (deployment_trigger, service_restart). This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus other options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses that the tool creates a persistent volume (implying a write operation) and provides context on use cases and prerequisites. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, error conditions, or rate limits, which would be helpful for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with bullet points and clear sections (Best for, Not for, Prerequisites, Next steps, Related). Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly. It efficiently conveys essential information in a compact format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job by covering purpose, usage guidelines, and prerequisites. However, it could improve by mentioning what the tool returns or any confirmation details, as there's no output schema. The context is mostly complete but has a minor gap in output information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a new persistent volume for a service, specifying both the action (create) and resource (persistent volume). It distinguishes from sibling tools like volume_list, volume_delete, and volume_update by focusing on creation rather than listing, deletion, or updating.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance with 'Best for' and 'Not for' sections, clearly indicating when to use this tool (e.g., for database storage, persistent data) and when not to (e.g., temporary storage, static file hosting). It also lists prerequisites (service_list) and related tools (service_update, database_deploy), offering comprehensive usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 mentions the tool is for 'viewing persistent storage configurations' and 'auditing storage usage' which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly state whether this is a safe read operation, what permissions are required, or describe pagination/rate limiting. It adds some context but leaves behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It begins with the core purpose, uses bullet points for use cases, and includes prerequisite/next step information efficiently. Every section adds value without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides good contextual coverage. It explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, prerequisites, and related tools. The main gap is lack of output format information, but given the tool's simplicity and clear purpose, the description is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with only one parameter (projectId) fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, but with minimal parameters and complete schema coverage, this is acceptable. The baseline for high schema coverage would be 3, but the tool's simplicity and single parameter justify a 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all volumes in a project'), distinguishing it from siblings like volume_create, volume_delete, and volume_update. The title-like first sentence provides immediate clarity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance with 'Best for' bullet points, prerequisites (project_list), next steps (volume_create), and related tools (service_info, database_deploy). This gives clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives like service_list or deployment_list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively communicates that this is a read-only discovery tool (implied by 'List' and 'Discovering'), though it doesn't explicitly mention rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. The 'Not for' section helps clarify behavioral boundaries.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with clear sections (purpose, best for, not for, alternatives, next steps, related). Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter discovery tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and relationships to other tools. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit information about response format or structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on purpose and usage rather than parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('List all available database types') and resource ('database types that can be deployed using Railway's official templates'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'database_deploy_from_template' by focusing on discovery rather than deployment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance with 'Best for' and 'Not for' sections, clearly indicating when to use this tool (discovering supported types, planning deployments) and when not to use it (listing existing databases, getting connection details). It also names alternatives ('service_create_from_image') and next steps ('database_deploy').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 does well by indicating this is a creation/mutation tool ('Create a new domain'), mentioning prerequisites (service_list, domain_check), and suggesting next steps (domain_update). However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens when domain/suffix/targetPort are omitted despite them being optional in the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with clear sections using icons and bullet points. Every sentence earns its place: the core purpose is stated upfront, followed by organized guidance. No wasted words while maintaining excellent readability through visual formatting.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description does quite well. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, prerequisites, and relationships to other tools. The main gap is lack of information about what happens after creation (response format, success indicators) since there's no output schema, and it doesn't address potential errors or constraints beyond the basic guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by contextualizing the optional parameters: it implies that railway will generate domain/suffix automatically and detect targetPort, which helps the agent understand when to provide these vs. rely on defaults. However, it doesn't explain the relationship between environmentId and serviceId or provide examples of valid domain formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb+resource: 'Create a new domain for a service.' It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning what it's not for (TCP proxy setup, internal service communication) and naming alternatives like tcp_proxy_create. This provides excellent differentiation within the toolset.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides comprehensive usage guidance with explicit sections: 'Best for' lists three specific use cases, 'Not for' excludes two scenarios with named alternatives, plus 'Prerequisites', 'Alternatives', 'Next steps', and 'Related' tools. This gives the agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use information with specific tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing critical behavioral traits: it's destructive ('Delete a Railway project and all its resources'), irreversible (implied by 'Best for removing unused projects'), and has prerequisites. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth needs, but covers the essential destructive nature adequately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with clear sections (API note, Best for, Not for, Prerequisites, Alternatives, Related), uses bullet points and symbols for readability, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, 1 parameter with full schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the action, when to use it, alternatives, prerequisites, and behavioral implications. For a deletion tool, this covers all necessary context without needing to detail return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter projectId, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by contextualizing the parameter as 'ID of the project to delete' in the schema, but doesn't provide additional format examples or constraints beyond what's in the schema. It earns a 4 because it implicitly reinforces the parameter's purpose through the tool's overall description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and resource 'Railway project and all its resources', making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like service_delete by emphasizing project-level deletion versus service-level cleanup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance with 'Best for' (removing unused/cleanup projects) and 'Not for' (temporary deactivation, service-level cleanup), names alternatives (service_delete), and lists prerequisites (project_list, project_info). This gives comprehensive when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![railway-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Kruglyak/railway-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Kruglyak/railway-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![railway-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Kruglyak/railway-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Kruglyak/railway-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Kruglyak/railway-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server