Railway MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates this is a read operation ('Get detailed information'), which is helpful, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific details are returned. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized. It uses clear sections with bullet points and arrows for organization, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place by providing distinct value (purpose, usage scenarios, prerequisites, next steps, related tools).

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 (single parameter, read operation) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description does a good job covering usage context. However, it doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes or the response format, which would be helpful since there's no output schema. It's mostly complete but has minor gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 the single parameter 'projectId' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, where to find project IDs). This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does 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 detailed information') and resource ('about a specific Railway project'). It distinguishes from siblings like project_list (which lists projects) and project_update/project_delete (which modify projects) by focusing on retrieving detailed information for a single project.

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: Viewing project details and status, Checking environments and services, Project configuration review'), prerequisites ('Prerequisites: project_list'), next steps ('Next steps: service_list, variable_list'), and related alternatives ('Related: project_update, project_delete'). This comprehensive guidance helps the agent select this tool appropriately.

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