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 effectively describes that the tool initiates an Ambari request, returns request information for progress tracking, provides success/error messages for LLM automation, and ensures 'safe and monitored startup'. However, it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, or what happens if the service is already running.

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 structured with clear sections ([Tool Role], [Core Functions], etc.), but it is verbose with some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'start' concepts). Sentences like 'Provide clear success or error message for LLM automation' could be more concise. However, the information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

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 (a mutation operation with no annotations), the description is complete: it explains the purpose, usage, behavior, parameters, and return values. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return formats, and it adequately covers the single parameter and behavioral expectations for a service-start 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains the single parameter 'service_name' as 'Name of the service to start' with examples ('HDFS', 'YARN', 'HBASE'), adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. No other parameters exist, so this adequately covers the input semantics.

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 'Starts a specific service in the Ambari cluster' with a specific verb ('Starts') and resource ('service in the Ambari cluster'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'restart_service', 'stop_service', 'start_all_services', and 'get_service_status' by focusing on single-service startup rather than restarting, stopping, bulk operations, or status checking.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool, including user requests to 'start' a service, recovering stopped services, maintenance requiring service start, and mentions of 'bring up service' or 'automated start'. It implicitly distinguishes from alternatives like 'restart_service' (for restarting rather than starting) and 'get_service_status' (for checking rather than acting).

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