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 creates maintenance windows and returns IDs from both systems, which covers the basic operation and output. However, it lacks details on permissions required, error handling, rate limits, or whether the action is reversible/destructive. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of only two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, scope, and output. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand 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 tool's complexity (mutation across two systems, 5 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the dual-system operation and return values (IDs), but misses details like error scenarios, authentication needs, or side effects. For a mutation tool with no structured safety hints, more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., 'name' as maintenance title, 'start_time' in ISO 8601 format). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters or usage nuances. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 specific action ('Create a maintenance window'), the resources involved ('BOTH Statuspage and Uptime Kuma'), and the scope ('in a single call'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its siblings by emphasizing the dual-system operation, unlike tools like 'ops_create_maintenance' or 'ops_create_uk_maintenance' which target individual systems.

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 guidance on when to use this tool: when maintenance needs to be scheduled on both Statuspage and Uptime Kuma simultaneously. It implicitly suggests alternatives by naming the sibling tools (e.g., 'ops_create_maintenance' for Statuspage-only or 'ops_create_uk_maintenance' for Uptime Kuma-only), helping the agent choose the right tool based on the required coverage.

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