Railway 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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose (restarting a service) and practical use cases (applying config changes, clearing state, resolving issues), which implies a mutation operation with potential downtime. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or response format, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 with bullet points and icons, making it easy to scan. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines, prerequisites, and related tools. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, achieving high efficiency in communication.

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 complexity (a mutation operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a strong job by covering purpose, usage guidelines, prerequisites, and alternatives. It lacks details on output format or error handling, but for a restart tool, the provided context is largely sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 both parameters (serviceId, environmentId) adequately. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning that environmentId is 'usually obtained from service_info', but this is a minor enhancement. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 action ('Restart a service') and specifies the scope ('in a specific environment'), using a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like service_delete (long-term stoppage) and service_update (config changes), making the purpose unambiguous.

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' and 'Not for' sections, naming specific alternatives (deployment_trigger, service_update, service_delete). It also includes prerequisites (service_list) and related tools (service_info, deployment_logs), offering comprehensive context for when to use this tool versus others.

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