Ambient Code Platform MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable context by specifying the data source as 'clusters.yaml', revealing this reads from local configuration rather than a remote API. However, it lacks details on error states (what if the file is missing?), permissions required to read the file, or the return format.

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 with zero waste. It front-loads the action ('List') and immediately specifies both what is returned (cluster aliases) and their provenance (clusters.yaml).

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 simplicity (zero parameters, likely straightforward output) and absence of annotations or output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It identifies both the entity and its source location. However, it could briefly indicate whether this returns a list/array or requires specific context to be useful.

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 contains zero parameters. According to the scoring rubric, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately implies no filtering or input options are available by stating it lists the configured aliases without qualification.

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), resource (configured cluster aliases), and source (clusters.yaml), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool 'acp_switch_cluster', leaving minor ambiguity about the relationship between these cluster-related operations.

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 'acp_switch_cluster' or when to prefer it over 'acp_whoami' for cluster context. There are no prerequisites or conditions mentioned.

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