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. While it mentions the API name ('Logging Search API') and return format ('List of log entries'), it doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a search tool 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 well-structured and appropriately concise. It begins with a clear purpose statement, then provides parameter documentation in a clean format, and ends with return value information. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or unnecessary content. The formatting with clear sections for 'Args' and 'Returns' enhances readability.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information but has notable gaps. It covers the purpose and parameters well, but lacks behavioral context (permissions, limits, errors) and detailed output specification. For a search tool with 3 parameters and no structured metadata, this represents a minimum viable description that could be more complete, particularly regarding the search query syntax and result format.

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 provides clear semantic information for all three parameters beyond what the schema offers. The schema has 0% description coverage (only titles), but the description specifies: 'time_start: Start time in ISO format (YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ)', 'time_end: End time in ISO format (YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ)', and 'search_query: Search query string'. This adds crucial format details and meaning that the schema lacks, though it could benefit from examples of valid search queries.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search logs using the Logging Search API.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('logs'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_logs' or 'list_log_groups', which appear to be related but distinct 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'list_logs' and 'list_log_groups' available, there's no indication of how this search functionality differs from those listing operations. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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