MetaMCP Admin MCP

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 the basic read operation but fails to disclose critical behavioral details: whether returned keys are masked/partial for security, if the operation supports pagination, what 'all' encompasses (user-scoped vs admin-scoped), or what happens when the optional 'instance' parameter is omitted.

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?

Single sentence, appropriately front-loaded with action verb, zero waste words. Length is proportional to the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no nested structures).

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 low complexity (1 optional param, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description covers the basic contract. However, for a security-sensitive resource like API keys, the lack of behavioral transparency (masking, auth requirements) leaves gaps that would be necessary for safe agent operation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the schema already documents 'instance' as 'Instance name'. The description mentions 'MetaMCP instance' which aligns the parameter to the resource context but adds no additional semantic detail about valid instance name formats or default behavior when omitted.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with clear resource 'API keys' and scope 'on a MetaMCP instance'. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like create_api_key or delete_api_key, the action verb inherently distinguishes it. It doesn't explicitly compare to list_instances or list_servers, but the resource clarity is good.

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 such as create_api_key or delete_api_key, nor does it mention prerequisites like authentication requirements or permissions needed to view keys.

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