ops-mcp

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 states it's a read operation ('List'), but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. The description is minimal and lacks necessary behavioral context for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 purpose without any wasted words. It directly states what the tool does and includes the key detail about current status, making it appropriately sized for its simplicity.

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 low complexity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the resource and what information is returned, but lacks behavioral details like output format or operational constraints. For a simple list tool, it's passable but could be more informative.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expectation. No additional value is required or provided beyond the 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 clearly states the action ('List all') and resource ('Uptime Kuma monitors'), including the scope of information returned ('with their current status'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like ops_list_components or ops_list_incidents by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from ops_list_uk_maintenance, which is a closely related sibling.

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, timing considerations, or compare it to siblings like ops_list_components for broader status checks or ops_list_uk_maintenance for maintenance-specific listings. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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