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 indicates this is a mutation tool ('Update or resolve'), but fails to mention critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like (no output schema exists). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent 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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, response expectations, or differentiation from similar tools. For a tool that modifies system state, more context about permissions and consequences would be needed for safe use.

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, so parameters are well-documented there. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides about 'incident_id', 'status', or 'body'. According to scoring rules, this earns the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 'Update or resolve' and the resource 'Statuspage incident/maintenance', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'ops_create_maintenance' or 'ops_schedule_maintenance', which prevents a perfect score.

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_create_maintenance' for new incidents or 'ops_end_uk_maintenance' for UK-specific resolutions. It also doesn't mention prerequisites such as needing an existing incident ID, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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