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. 'Stop an instance' implies a mutation that halts an instance, but it doesn't describe side effects (e.g., data persistence, billing implications), permissions required, error conditions, or what happens if the instance is already stopped. The 'force' parameter in the schema hints at optional forceful stopping, but the description doesn't explain this behavior.

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 'Stop an instance.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly states the action without unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with no annotations, 2 parameters at 0% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, error handling, and output, which are critical for an agent to invoke this tool correctly in a cloud infrastructure context with many sibling tools.

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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters beyond implying an 'instance' target. It doesn't explain what 'instance_id' refers to (e.g., format, scope) or the meaning of the 'force' parameter (e.g., whether it bypasses graceful shutdown), failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'Stop an instance' clearly states the action (stop) and target resource (instance), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what type of instance (e.g., compute instance) and doesn't distinguish it from similar tools like 'stop_db_node' or 'stop_db_system' in the sibling list, which are also stop operations on different resources.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., instance must be running), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'start_instance' or other stop-related tools (e.g., 'stop_db_node'), leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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