Railway MCP Server

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 destructive behavior ('Delete') but doesn't disclose critical details like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens to associated resources. The description adds some context (e.g., not for temporary disabling) but lacks comprehensive 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.

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 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 complexity (destructive operation with 1 parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and alternatives well, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permanence or side effects, which are important for a delete operation.

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% (the 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'ID of the domain to delete'), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation rules.

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 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). It avoids tautology by specifying the operation and target.

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' (removing unused domains, cleaning up configurations, domain management) and 'Not for' (temporary domain disabling, port updates), plus named alternatives (domain_update) and prerequisites (domain_list). This clearly defines 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.