MetaMCP Admin MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. While 'Create' implies mutation, the description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits typical of API key creation: specifically that this likely generates and returns sensitive credential material (usually revealed only once) and whether the operation is reversible. The agent has no indication that the return value requires secure handling.

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?

Extremely brief at four words. While this demonstrates efficiency and zero redundancy, the brevity is excessive given the lack of annotations and output schema, leaving critical behavioral information unaddressed. Structure is adequate but content is insufficient.

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 credential-creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what is returned (the key material) and security implications. The omission is significant: the agent cannot infer from the schema that it must capture and store the returned secret immediately.

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 100%, with both 'name' and 'instance' properties fully documented in the JSON schema. The description text does not mention these parameters, but since the schema provides complete semantic coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the action (Create) and resource (API key) but is essentially a restatement of the tool name with articles added. It fails to distinguish from sibling creation tools (create_server, create_endpoint, etc.) or clarify the scope/domain of the API key being created.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_api_keys or delete_api_key. No prerequisites mentioned (e.g., whether an instance must exist first), though the optional 'instance' parameter suggests some relationship to the instance resource.

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