Alibaba Cloud RDS OpenAPI MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a creation operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the account is immediately active, potential rate limits, or what happens if the account name already exists. The description mentions a return type but gives no details on response structure or success/error handling.

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 structured with Args and Returns sections, making it organized. However, it's slightly verbose—the first sentence could stand alone, and the parameter explanations are minimal but adequate. It's front-loaded with the purpose, but some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'account' in each param).

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 6 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., mutation effects, error cases) and output details. For a creation tool with multiple inputs, it should provide more guidance on usage and outcomes to be fully helpful.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 6 parameters with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the schema's titles. For example, it clarifies account_type with examples (e.g., Normal, Super) and notes account_description and account_type have defaults. However, it doesn't explain region_id or db_instance_id formats, or password requirements.

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 tool creates a new account for an RDS instance, specifying both the action (create) and resource (account for RDS instance). It distinguishes from siblings like create_db_instance (creates the instance itself) and describe_db_instance_accounts (lists accounts). However, it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction, so it's not a perfect 5.

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., the RDS instance must exist), when not to use it, or refer to sibling tools like describe_db_instance_accounts for checking existing accounts. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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