Ops 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 describes key behaviors: it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), returns formatted output with specific content (e.g., summary counts, highlighted failed DAGs), and includes important constraints like requiring explicit environment specification ('IMPORTANT: Do NOT guess or default'). However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 (purpose, usage guidelines, output details, args, returns) and front-loads key information. Most sentences earn their place, though some phrasing like 'the go-to tool for any overview question' is slightly verbose. Overall, it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, and output format. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, and it adequately addresses all other aspects needed for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides detailed semantics for both parameters: 'env' is explained as 'Target environment' with valid values listed and a critical usage note, and 'limit' is described as 'Maximum number of DAGs to return' with its default value. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a complete status dashboard of ALL DAGs.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('status dashboard'), and scope ('ALL DAGs'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_dags or get_dag_run_details by emphasizing comprehensive overview functionality.

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 usage guidelines with a dedicated 'USE THIS TOOL when the user asks:' section listing five specific query patterns. It clearly defines when to use this tool versus alternatives by positioning it as the 'go-to tool for any overview question,' differentiating it from more specific sibling tools.

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