OCI MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'reboot' implies a potentially disruptive operation, the description doesn't clarify whether this causes downtime, requires specific permissions, has safety checks, or provides any status feedback. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 at just four words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'reboot' entails operationally, what the consequences are, how to identify the correct node ID, or what to expect after invocation. The context demands more comprehensive guidance.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the single parameter 'db_node_id' is undocumented in the schema. The description provides no additional information about this parameter - no format requirements, no examples, no context about where to find valid node IDs. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 ('reboot') and the target resource ('a DB Node'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'reset_db_node' or 'softreset_db_node' that appear to perform similar operations on the same resource type.

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 like 'reset_db_node', 'softreset_db_node', 'start_db_node', or 'stop_db_node'. There's no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or appropriate contexts for choosing this specific reboot operation.

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