OCI MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Stop all nodes') which implies a destructive/mutating operation, but doesn't clarify whether this is reversible, what permissions are needed, whether it affects database availability, or what happens to connected applications. The note about compartment_id is procedural but doesn't address behavioral traits like side effects or system impact.

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 appropriately brief with two sentences that each serve a purpose: the first states the core functionality, the second provides important implementation detail. There's no unnecessary verbiage or repetition. While it could be slightly more informative, every sentence earns its place by adding value.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'stopping' entails, whether data is preserved, how to verify completion, error conditions, or system dependencies. The context signals indicate this is a complex operation that requires more complete documentation than provided.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'compartment_id required to enumerate nodes correctly' which adds some semantic context for one parameter, but doesn't explain 'db_system_id' (the primary identifier) or 'soft' (with its default true value). With 3 parameters and minimal description coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding parameter purposes.

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 ('Stop all nodes') and resource ('of a DB System'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'stop_db_node' or 'stop_instance', but the specificity of 'DB System' provides some implicit distinction. The description avoids tautology by not merely restating the tool name.

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 'stop_db_node' (for individual nodes) or 'stop_instance' (for compute instances). The note about 'compartment_id required to enumerate nodes correctly' is a parameter requirement, not usage guidance. There's no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or appropriate contexts for invoking this tool.

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