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 describes the tool as a read operation ('Get detailed information'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't explicitly state permission requirements, rate limits, or error behaviors. The description adds some context about what information is retrieved (configuration, status, deployment details, health) but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 organized sections (Best for, Prerequisites, Next steps, Related). Every sentence earns its place by providing actionable guidance without redundancy or fluff.

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 (3 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides good contextual coverage. It explains the tool's purpose, usage scenarios, prerequisites, and related tools. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail on return values or error handling to be fully complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (projectId, serviceId, environmentId) with clear descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or relationships between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is complete.

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') and resource ('detailed information about a specific service'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like service_list (which lists services) and service_update (which modifies services) by focusing on retrieving detailed information for a single service.

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 with 'Best for' scenarios (viewing configuration, checking deployment details, monitoring health), prerequisites (service_list), next steps (deployment_list, variable_list), and related tools (service_update, deployment_trigger). This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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