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 disclosing behavioral traits: it explains the two modes (current/history), filtering capabilities, output formats, pagination for history mode, and time context for LLM processing. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth needs, but covers core functionality thoroughly.

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 sections ([Tool Role], [Core Functions], etc.), but it is lengthy and could be more front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, but some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating mode details in multiple sections), slightly reducing efficiency.

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 complexity (14 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral details thoroughly. The output schema handles return values, so the description appropriately focuses on input and context without duplicating output information.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section provides detailed explanations for all 14 parameters, including mode-specific constraints (e.g., maintenance_state for current mode only) and defaults. It adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though some enums (like state_filter values) are listed but not fully explained in context.

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 retrieves both current alerts and alert history from Ambari cluster, specifying the resource (alerts from Ambari cluster) and distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_current_alerts' by covering both current and historical data. The [Tool Role] section reinforces this unified purpose.

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 explicitly lists when to use current mode (e.g., for monitoring immediate cluster health) and history mode (e.g., for analyzing alert trends), providing clear context for when to choose each mode. It also distinguishes use cases from other tools by focusing on alert retrieval.

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