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 destructive operation ('Delete') but doesn't explicitly state whether deletion is permanent, reversible, or requires specific permissions. The 'Security management' hint adds some context, but more behavioral details (like confirmation prompts or side effects) would be helpful.

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 efficiently structured with bullet points, icons, and clear sections (Best for, Not for, Prerequisites, Related). Every sentence earns its place by providing actionable guidance without unnecessary elaboration.

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 operation with no annotations or output schema), the description does well by covering purpose, usage guidelines, and prerequisites. However, it lacks details on behavioral outcomes (e.g., what happens post-deletion, error conditions), which would make it more complete for a mutation tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage (the single parameter 'proxyId' is well-documented in the schema), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but since there's only one parameter and the schema covers it fully, a score of 4 reflects adequate clarity without redundancy.

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 TCP proxy') and resource ('TCP proxy'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like tcp_proxy_create and tcp_proxy_list. It goes beyond just restating the name by specifying it's an API operation.

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 on when to use ('Best for: Removing unused proxies, Security management, Endpoint cleanup') and when not to use ('Not for: Temporary proxy disabling, Port updates'), plus mentions prerequisites ('tcp_proxy_list') and a related alternative ('service_update').

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