VPS 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 mentions the tool lists endpoints to find IDs and addresses a specific error scenario, but it lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with it effectively.

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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the tool's purpose and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured. There is no wasted text, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It explains the purpose and when to use it, but lacks behavioral details like output format or error handling. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it provides enough for basic understanding, aligning with a score of 3.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description does not add parameter semantics, which is appropriate here. According to the rules, 0 parameters warrants a baseline score of 4, as there is nothing to compensate for and the schema is fully descriptive.

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: 'List available Portainer endpoints to find the correct Endpoint ID.' This specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('Portainer endpoints'), and objective ('find the correct Endpoint ID'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_portainer_config' or 'test_portainer_connection', which prevents a score of 5.

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 clear usage guidance: 'Use this when you get an "Object not found" error during connection test.' This gives a specific scenario for when to use the tool, which is helpful. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly compare it to alternatives (e.g., other list tools), so it falls short of a 5.

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