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 describes the tool as a read operation ('Get detailed information'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't explicitly state this. It mentions the tool is for viewing/checking/reviewing, which suggests read-only behavior, but doesn't address authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds some behavioral context but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 appropriately sized. It uses clear section headers (Best for, Prerequisites, Next steps, Related) and bullet points for readability. Every sentence earns its place by providing specific guidance without redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by usage guidance.

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 (single parameter, read operation) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description does a good job of providing context. It explains the purpose, when to use it, prerequisites, next steps, and related tools. However, it doesn't describe the return format or what specific information is included in 'detailed information,' which would be helpful since there's no output schema.

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 single parameter projectId has a clear description in the schema). The tool description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter info in the description, which applies here.

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: 'Get detailed information about a specific Railway project' with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Railway project'). It distinguishes from siblings like project_list (which lists projects) and project_update/project_delete (which modify projects). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from service_info (which gets service details) or project_environments (which focuses on environments).

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 excellent usage guidance with explicit sections: 'Best for' lists specific use cases (viewing details, checking environments, configuration review), 'Prerequisites' specifies project_list as a required prior step, 'Next steps' suggests follow-up tools (service_list, variable_list), and 'Related' identifies alternative/modification tools (project_update, project_delete). 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.