OCI MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List') and return format ('List of vaults with their type, endpoints, and state'), but lacks critical details such as pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second clarifies the parameter, and the third outlines the return value. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basics: purpose, parameter meaning, and return content. However, it lacks behavioral details (e.g., pagination, errors) that would be helpful for an agent, especially without annotations. It's minimally adequate but not fully comprehensive for safe invocation.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter ('compartment_id: OCID of the compartment to list vaults from'), explaining its purpose beyond the schema's bare title ('Compartment Id'). With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensation is effective, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., OCID structure).

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 specific action ('List all KMS vaults') and resource ('in a compartment'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_vault' (which retrieves a single vault) and other list_* tools that target different resources. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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. While the description implies it's for listing vaults, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), when not to use it, or how it differs from other listing tools in the sibling set beyond the resource type. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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