ops-mcp

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. It states the tool ends or pauses a maintenance window early, implying a mutation action, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if the change is reversible, what happens to associated data, or error conditions. 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. There is no wasted text, and it directly communicates the tool's purpose 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 complexity of a mutation tool (ending a maintenance window) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., effects, permissions), usage context, and return values, which are essential for an agent to invoke it correctly and safely.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'maintenance_id' documented as 'Maintenance ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as how to obtain the ID or format requirements. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('End (pause)') and resource ('an Uptime Kuma maintenance window early'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ops_update_maintenance' or 'ops_create_uk_maintenance', which might also modify maintenance windows, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.

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., that a maintenance window must be active), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'ops_update_maintenance' for modifying other aspects. This leaves the agent with little context for tool selection.

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