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 destructive operation ('Delete'), which implies irreversible removal, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or confirmation steps. The description adds some behavioral context (e.g., security management use cases) but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 efficiently structured with bullet points and symbols for readability, front-loading the core purpose and avoiding redundancy. Each section ('Best for', 'Not for', 'Prerequisites', 'Related') adds value without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage guidelines, and prerequisites. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error responses or confirmation requirements, which are important for a delete operation. It's mostly complete but has minor gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 'proxyId' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation rules. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding but doesn't need to.

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 specific action ('Delete a TCP proxy') and resource ('TCP proxy'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like tcp_proxy_create or tcp_proxy_list. It uses a precise verb and identifies the exact resource type, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 it ('Best for: Removing unused proxies, Security management, Endpoint cleanup') and when not to use it ('Not for: Temporary proxy disabling, Port updates'), with clear alternatives implied (e.g., use service_update for updates). It also mentions prerequisites ('tcp_proxy_list') and related tools ('service_update'), offering comprehensive usage context.

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