Hyperfabric MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), what permissions are required, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Get a specific VNI.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a VNI is, how it relates to fabrics, what data is returned, or error handling. For a tool in a network management context with many siblings, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like fabricId and vniId). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with any extra context.

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 'Get a specific VNI' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (VNI), but it's vague about what 'specific' means and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'vnisGetFabricVnis' (plural) or 'vnisGetFabricVniMember'. It doesn't specify that this retrieves a single VNI by ID, which would help distinguish it from list operations.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vnisGetFabricVnis' (get all VNIs) or 'vnisGetFabricVniMember' (get VNI members). The description implies it's for retrieving a single VNI, but it doesn't explicitly state this or mention prerequisites like needing fabric and VNI identifiers.

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