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 a creation/mutation operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, error handling, or rate limits. The description adds some context (e.g., prerequisites) but lacks details on what happens upon creation or potential side effects.

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 sections, making it easy to scan. Every sentence adds value (e.g., use cases, exclusions, prerequisites), and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering usage guidelines and prerequisites. However, it lacks details on return values or error conditions, which would be helpful for a mutation tool. It's mostly complete but has minor gaps in behavioral context.

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 all parameters (projectId, image, name). The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create a new service') and resource ('from a Docker image'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'service_create_from_repo' and 'database_deploy'. It explicitly mentions Docker image usage, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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 alternatives like 'database_deploy' and 'service_create_from_repo'. It includes prerequisites ('project_list') and related 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.