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. 'Pull an image from a registry' implies a network operation that downloads or updates an image, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if the image already exists locally, potential rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with network implications and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration. This is an example of efficient communication where every word earns its place.

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 of a network operation (pulling from a registry) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success status, error messages, or image details), behavioral aspects like authentication needs, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool in this context, more information is needed to guide effective use.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'image' parameter documented as 'Image name (e.g., nginx:alpine)'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to since the schema already provides adequate documentation.

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 ('pull') and resource ('image from a registry'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_image' or 'remove_image' which also operate on images, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific pull operation is needed versus other image-related 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 siblings like 'get_image' (likely for retrieving image metadata) and 'remove_image', there's no indication whether 'pull_image' is for downloading new images, refreshing existing ones, or something else. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers are mentioned.

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