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 communicates this is a destructive operation ('Delete'), provides context about when it's appropriate (removing unused services, cleaning up test services), and warns against misuse (not for temporary stoppage). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like data loss or irreversible consequences, which would be valuable for a deletion tool.

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 clear sections (API tag, best for, not for, prerequisites, alternatives, related). Every sentence earns its place by providing distinct value - no redundancy or wasted words. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

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?

For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job providing context about usage scenarios, alternatives, and prerequisites. The main gap is the lack of information about what happens after deletion (confirmation, error handling, or return values), which would be helpful given 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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (projectId and serviceId). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 service from a project'), identifies the resource ('service'), and distinguishes it from siblings like service_restart and service_update. The opening line provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 dedicated 'Best for' and 'Not for' sections, naming specific alternatives (service_restart, service_update). It also lists prerequisites (service_list, service_info) and related tools (project_delete), giving comprehensive context for 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.