MCP-Ambari-API

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'Returns a formatted list' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'basic information' includes. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient transparency.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, and the second clarifies the output format. There is zero waste or redundancy.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and output format, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, data scope) that would be helpful since annotations are absent. The output schema reduces the need for return value details, but more context could improve completeness.

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 correctly doesn't add parameter details, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary repetition.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all users in the Ambari system'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_user' by indicating it returns all users rather than a specific one. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other list-like siblings (e.g., 'list_hosts'), keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'list_users' over 'get_user' for individual user details, or how it relates to other list tools like 'list_hosts'. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving usage unclear.

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