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 describes the tool's purpose and usage context but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the service list returns. The 'Best for' section provides some behavioral context about what the output can be used for.

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 organized sections (Best for, Prerequisites, Next steps, Related). Every sentence/section earns its place by providing useful 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?

For a simple list tool with 1 parameter and 100% schema coverage, the description provides adequate context about purpose and usage. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally mention more about the return format or behavioral constraints. The 'Best for' section helps but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of output information.

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% for the single parameter 'projectId', so the schema already documents it adequately. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate.

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: 'List all services in a specific Railway project' - a specific verb (list) and resource (services) with scope (Railway project). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'service_info' or 'deployment_list' beyond mentioning them as 'next steps'.

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 clear usage context with 'Best for' scenarios and prerequisite/next step relationships. It mentions 'project_list' as a prerequisite and 'service_info, deployment_list' as next steps, giving good guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or provide alternatives for similar functionality.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.