Railway MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the tool is for 'Get logs' (implying a read operation) and specifies use cases, but does not detail aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or log format. The description adds some context (e.g., what it's not for) but lacks depth on operational behavior, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by bullet points for best uses, exclusions, and related steps. Every sentence earns its place by providing clear, actionable information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it clarifies purpose, usage, and exclusions. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., log format, pagination) and output expectations, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively. The absence of an output schema increases the need for more context, but the description partially compensates with usage guidelines.

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 both parameters (deploymentId, limit) clearly documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get logs') and resource ('for a specific deployment'), distinguishing it from siblings like deployment_status (which checks status rather than logs) and deployment_list (which lists deployments rather than fetching logs). The title is null, so the description fully carries this burden.

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 ('Best for: Debugging deployment issues, Monitoring deployment progress, Checking build output') and when not to use it ('Not for: Service runtime logs, Database logs'). It also lists prerequisites ('deployment_list'), next steps ('deployment_status'), and related tools ('service_info, deployment_trigger'), offering comprehensive alternatives and context.

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