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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function (querying Ambari REST API), return format (host names and API links, formatted output for LLM automation), and success/failure outcomes. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior, which would be valuable for a read operation.

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], [Required Usage Scenarios], Returns), making it easy to parse. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though some sections could be slightly more concise (e.g., '[Core Functions]' lists multiple points that could be merged).

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 (which handles return value documentation), the description provides sufficient context. It covers purpose, usage scenarios, and behavioral aspects like API interaction and output formatting. However, it could improve by mentioning authentication or error handling specifics to be fully comprehensive.

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 does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description adds value elsewhere without redundancy.

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 explicitly states the tool 'Retrieves the list of hosts in the Ambari cluster' with a dedicated tool role section reinforcing this. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_host_details' (which likely provides detailed info for a specific host) by focusing on listing all hosts, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 includes a '[Required Usage Scenarios]' section that explicitly states when to use this tool: 'When users request cluster host list or host details' and 'When auditing or monitoring cluster nodes.' This provides clear, actionable guidance on appropriate contexts for tool invocation.

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