ops-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention if this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format might be, which is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 listing maintenance windows, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned, how results are structured, or any limitations, which leaves the agent without enough context to use the tool effectively beyond its basic purpose.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no inputs are required, aligning with the schema. Baseline 4 is appropriate as it doesn't contradict or add unnecessary information.

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 ('List') and resource ('all Uptime Kuma maintenance windows'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'ops_list_components' or 'ops_list_incidents' which also list different resources, so it misses explicit differentiation.

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 like 'ops_list_uk_monitors' or 'ops_create_uk_maintenance'. It lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.

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