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 describing behavioral traits: it's for 'automated stop', ensures 'safe and monitored shutdown', initiates an Ambari request, returns request info for tracking, and provides success/error messages. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or irreversible effects, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 appropriately sized but not optimally structured: it uses sections like '[Tool Role]' and '[Core Functions]' which add clarity but could be more streamlined. Sentences earn their place, but the formatting is slightly verbose compared to a single cohesive paragraph.

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 destructive operation with 1 parameter, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is complete: it explains purpose, usage, behavior, parameters, and return values. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return formats, and it adequately covers all aspects for an AI agent.

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 adds meaning by explaining 'service_name' as the name of the service to stop with examples like 'HDFS', 'YARN', 'HBASE', which clarifies usage beyond the schema's basic string type. However, it doesn't detail constraints like valid service names.

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 as stopping a specific service in the Ambari cluster with the verb 'stops' and resource 'service'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'stop_all_services', 'restart_service', and 'start_service' by specifying it's for a single service.

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 when to use this tool: when users request to stop a service, during maintenance/troubleshooting requiring shutdown, or when service stop is mentioned. It distinguishes from alternatives by not being for all services or restart operations.

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