Railway MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's purpose and constraints (e.g., not for service runtime logs), and implies it's a read operation ('Get logs'), which is appropriate. However, it doesn't mention potential behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior, leaving some gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by bullet-point sections for best uses, exclusions, and related tools. Every sentence earns its place by providing clear, actionable information without redundancy or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and related tools effectively. However, without annotations or an output schema, it could benefit from more details on return values or error handling, but it's largely sufficient for agent use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (deploymentId, limit) adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format details 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.

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 logs') and resource ('for a specific deployment'). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating what it's not for (service runtime logs, database logs), which helps differentiate from tools like service_info or database-related tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance with 'Best for' and 'Not for' sections, naming specific use cases (debugging, monitoring, checking build output) and exclusions. It also lists prerequisites (deployment_list), next steps (deployment_status), and related tools (service_info, deployment_trigger), giving comprehensive 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.