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 it's a bulk operation that starts services simultaneously, returns request information for progress tracking, and provides success/error messages. It could be improved by mentioning potential side effects (e.g., service dependencies, cluster impact) or authentication requirements, but covers core behavioral aspects adequately.

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 uses clear section headers ([Tool Role], [Core Functions], [Required Usage Scenarios]) which helps structure, but contains some redundancy (e.g., 'automating mass startup' repeats 'bulk starting') and could be more concise. The 'Returns:' section repeats information already in the output schema.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool does, when to use it, and what to expect. It could benefit from mentioning prerequisites (e.g., cluster state requirements) or potential risks, but covers the essential information needed for an agent to use it correctly.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters that don't exist, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage.

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 with a specific verb ('Starts') and resource ('all services in an Ambari cluster'), and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings by noting it's equivalent to 'Start All' in Ambari Web UI. It differentiates from tools like 'start_service' (singular) and 'restart_all_services'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool through the '[Required Usage Scenarios]' section, listing specific user requests ('start all services', 'cluster startup'), recovery scenarios, and mentions of mass/bulk operations. It clearly distinguishes this from alternatives like 'start_service' (singular) or 'restart_all_services'.

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