mcp-ninjaone

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral trait that maintenance windows 'suppress alerts during planned work', adding context beyond the basic listing function. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination (beyond the schema's page_size), or response format, which are important for a list operation with no output schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by additional context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 (one optional parameter) and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but has gaps. It lacks an output schema, and the description does not explain return values or behavioral details like pagination or error handling, which are needed for full completeness in a list 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'page_size' well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema, but with only one parameter and high coverage, the baseline is 3. The description's clarity on the tool's purpose indirectly supports parameter understanding, warranting a slightly higher score.

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 action ('List all scheduled maintenance windows') and the scope ('across organizations and devices'), with the specific purpose of suppressing alerts during planned work. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_maintenance_window' (creation vs. listing) and 'cancel_device_maintenance' (cancellation vs. listing).

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 implies usage by mentioning that maintenance windows 'suppress alerts during planned work', suggesting this tool is for viewing scheduled maintenance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'list_device_alerts' or 'list_alerts', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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