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 detailing what information is returned (status, progress, context, timing), success/failure formats, and that it's for 'real-time tracking and reporting.' It could improve by mentioning rate limits or authentication needs, but covers core behavior 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 clear sections ([Tool Role], [Core Functions], etc.), but contains some redundancy (e.g., 'Retrieves the status...' then '[Core Functions]: Query the status...'). It could be more concise by eliminating repetitive phrasing while maintaining clarity.

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 complexity (single parameter, read-only operation), the description is complete with purpose, usage guidelines, parameter explanation, and detailed return format. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to exhaustively document return values, and it provides adequate context for effective use.

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, but the description compensates by explaining that 'request_id' is the 'ID of the Ambari request to check (int)' in the Args section. However, it incorrectly states the type as 'int' while the schema shows 'string', creating minor confusion.

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 the status and progress of a specific Ambari request operation' with specific verbs (retrieves, query, provide, show, return) and resource (Ambari request). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_active_requests' (which lists multiple requests) by focusing on a specific request ID.

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 'when users ask for the status or progress of a specific operation/request' and 'when monitoring or troubleshooting Ambari operations.' This provides clear guidance on 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.