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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified properties, or any rate limits. It lacks critical context for safe and effective use in an automated environment.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's purpose.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral risks, response format, error conditions, or dependencies. For a tool that modifies resources, more context is needed to ensure reliable agent operation, especially with sibling tools like volume_delete that could interact.

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%, with clear documentation for both parameters (volumeId and name). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as 'Update a volume's properties' only vaguely hints at the parameters without providing additional syntax, constraints, or examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('a volume's properties'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like volume_create, volume_delete, and volume_list by focusing on modification rather than creation, deletion, or listing. However, it doesn't specify which properties can be updated beyond what's implied by the input schema.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing volume), exclusions (e.g., what can't be updated), or comparisons to siblings like volume_create for initial setup or service_update for related operations. Usage is implied only through the tool name and context.

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