MCP-Ambari-API

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 states this is a retrieval operation (implies read-only) and discloses the deprecation status and backward compatibility maintenance. However, it doesn't describe rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what 'current alerts' means in terms of time window. For a tool with no annotations, this provides some behavioral context but leaves important aspects unspecified.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second sentence provides crucial usage guidance about deprecation. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text or redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description covers the essential purpose and deprecation status adequately. However, for a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, the description should provide more context about parameter usage and behavioral constraints. The existence of an output schema reduces the burden, but the parameter gap remains significant.

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 and 7 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. The schema shows 7 filtering parameters (cluster_name, service_name, host_name, state_filter, definition_name, maintenance_state, format), but the description doesn't mention any of them or explain their purpose. This is inadequate given the low schema coverage and parameter count.

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: 'Retrieve current alerts from Ambari cluster.' This specifies both the verb ('retrieve') and resource ('current alerts from Ambari cluster'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_alerts_history' beyond mentioning it's deprecated in favor of that tool.

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: it states 'DEPRECATED: This function is deprecated in favor of get_alerts_history with mode="current".' This clearly indicates when NOT to use this tool (it's deprecated) and what alternative to use instead (get_alerts_history with specific mode). This is exactly what strong usage guidelines should provide.

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