VPS MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List all Docker volumes' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes system volumes, or provides metadata like size/creation date. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place in conveying the core functionality.

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 simple list operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention what information is returned (e.g., volume names, drivers, mount points) or any behavioral constraints. The description meets basic requirements but leaves room for improvement given the lack of structured metadata.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist, which is correct. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because it doesn't explicitly state 'no parameters needed' or similar, though this is implied.

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 ('List') and resource ('all Docker volumes'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_container' or 'list_containers', but the specificity of 'volumes' provides inherent differentiation. The description avoids tautology by not just 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. With sibling tools like 'get_container', 'list_containers', and 'list_networks', there's no indication of when volume listing is appropriate versus other resource types. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context are mentioned.

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