MCP-Ambari-API

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explaining behavioral aspects: it's a read-only introspection tool (implied by 'dump'), describes output truncation via 'max_chars', explains parameter precedence rules, and details how different modes affect output format. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but covers most operational behavior.

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 clear sections (overview, modes, args) and every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more front-loaded by moving the superseding note later, but overall it's efficiently organized with minimal redundancy.

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 (7 parameters, multiple modes) and 0% schema coverage, the description provides comprehensive guidance on usage, parameters, and behavior. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. It covers most aspects needed for effective use, though could mention error conditions or example outputs.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 7 parameters, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantic explanations for each parameter: it clarifies when parameters are ignored based on mode ('config_type' ignores other bulk params), explains substring filtering behavior, documents default overrides ('summarize forces include_values False'), and specifies numeric constraints (0 = unlimited).

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 as 'Unified configuration introspection tool' with specific verb ('introspection') and resource ('configurations'), distinguishing it from siblings that focus on services, hosts, users, or operations rather than configurations. The superseding note further clarifies its role relative to previous tools.

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 usage guidance through three distinct modes (single type, bulk list, filtering) and detailed parameter interactions (e.g., 'config_type' overrides other bulk parameters, 'summarize' forces 'include_values' to False). This gives clear when-to-use instructions for different scenarios.

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