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 the dual behavior (specific host vs all hosts), what information is returned (hardware specs, state, metrics, components), and output formatting. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling specifics, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 but contains some redundancy (e.g., 'Retrieves detailed information' then '[Tool Role]: Dedicated tool for retrieving comprehensive host details'). The '[Core Functions]' and '[Required Usage Scenarios]' sections overlap somewhat in content, making it slightly longer than necessary.

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 an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere), no annotations, and good parameter explanation in the description, this description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter behavior, and what information is returned, addressing all necessary context for a read-only query tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter, but the description fully compensates by clearly explaining host_name is optional, provides an example value, and explains the behavioral difference when provided vs omitted. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 detailed host information from an Ambari cluster, specifying both specific host and all hosts scenarios. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_hosts' by emphasizing comprehensive details including metrics, hardware info, and components rather than just listing.

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 four specific scenarios when to use this tool, including requesting specific/all host details, auditing/monitoring, and troubleshooting. It provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives.

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