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 clearly states that deletion affects 'all its resources', implying destructive behavior, and mentions prerequisites (project_list, project_info) for proper use. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or confirmation steps, which would be helpful 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.

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 is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines, prerequisites, and alternatives, with no wasted sentences. Every section adds value without redundancy.

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 deletion) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and alternatives. However, it could improve by including more behavioral details like irreversible effects or error handling, which are important for such a high-stakes 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%, with the parameter 'projectId' documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or sourcing details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the verb 'Delete' and resource 'Railway project and all its resources', making the purpose specific and clear. 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.

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 (removing unused projects) versus alternatives (service_delete for service-level cleanup). It also lists prerequisites and related tools, 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.