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 mentions the tool triggers a DAG run and returns a confirmation with a run ID, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations in a bullet-like format. Every sentence adds value, and the IMPORTANT note is appropriately emphasized without unnecessary verbosity.

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 (a mutation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basics of what the tool does and parameter semantics, but lacks behavioral context like permissions or side effects, which are crucial for safe usage.

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?

The description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains 'dag_id' as 'The DAG to trigger', 'env' with allowed values and critical usage guidance, and 'conf' as an optional JSON string. This compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation, though it doesn't fully detail all parameter nuances.

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 action ('Manually trigger a DAG run') and resource ('a DAG'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pause_dag' or 'unpause_dag' beyond the triggering action, which is why it doesn't reach a score of 5.

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 context for the 'env' parameter with explicit guidance ('IMPORTANT: Do NOT guess or default. Ask the user which environment if not specified'), which helps guide usage. However, it lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings like 'pause_dag', preventing a score of 5.

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