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: it discloses the tool retrieves real-time progress, monitors current activity, and returns either active request lists or error messages. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects, but for a read-only monitoring tool, the behavioral description is reasonably comprehensive.

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 ([Tool Role], [Core Functions], [Required Usage Scenarios]), but it's verbose. The usage scenarios list could be more concise (e.g., combining similar phrases). However, all content is relevant, and the front-loaded purpose statement is strong.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, read-only monitoring), the description is quite complete. It explains purpose, usage, and behavior. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values, though the 'Returns' note adds helpful context. For a monitoring tool with no annotations, this provides adequate guidance.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's function and usage. This meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool.

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: retrieving active/in-progress requests/operations in an Ambari cluster. It specifies the exact resource (Ambari operations with IN_PROGRESS/PENDING status) and distinguishes from siblings like get_request_status (which likely checks specific requests) or get_cluster_info (general info). The phrase 'Dedicated tool for monitoring currently running Ambari operations' reinforces its specialized role.

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 '[Required Usage Scenarios]' section provides explicit, comprehensive guidance on when to use this tool, listing multiple user query patterns (e.g., 'active requests', 'running operations', 'current activity'). It clearly differentiates this tool's focus on active/in-progress operations from other tools that might handle historical or general cluster data, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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