MCP-Ambari-API

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves data via Ambari REST API, includes service names, state, cluster information, and detailed links, and provides visual indicators. It also mentions real-time necessity and failure cases (error message), adding valuable behavioral context beyond basic functionality.

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 structured with sections like [Tool Role] and [Core Functions], which aids readability but includes some repetitive elements (e.g., 'Retrieves' in both the opening and core functions). It could be more concise by eliminating redundancy, though it remains fairly well-organized.

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 has 0 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral details, and return values, ensuring the agent has all necessary information to invoke the tool correctly without gaps.

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 focuses on usage and behavior without redundant parameter details, earning a high score for not adding unnecessary information while maintaining clarity.

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 a list of services with status in an Ambari cluster. It specifies the verb 'retrieves' and resource 'services with status', distinguishing it from siblings like get_service_details or get_service_status by focusing on the complete list rather than individual services or status checks alone.

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 explicitly includes 'Required Usage Scenarios' listing when to use this tool (e.g., for service list, cluster status check) and 'Absolutely Prohibited Scenarios' detailing when not to use it (e.g., for configuration changes, log viewing). It clearly differentiates this tool from alternatives by specifying its role in real-time retrieval.

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