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 states the tool tests the connection but doesn't describe what that entails (e.g., whether it makes an API call, checks authentication, returns success/failure details, or has side effects like logging). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about its behavior and potential outcomes.

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 that directly states the tool's function without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Test the connection'), making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal 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 complexity of testing an API connection and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'test' means operationally, what the output might look like (e.g., success status, error messages), or any dependencies (e.g., requires prior configuration). For a tool that could involve network calls and authentication checks, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose instead. This aligns with the baseline for tools without parameters, where the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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: 'Test the connection to Portainer API with current configuration.' It specifies the verb ('Test') and resource ('connection to Portainer API'), and distinguishes it from siblings that perform CRUD operations on containers, networks, etc. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_portainer_config' (which might retrieve config rather than test connectivity), keeping it from a perfect score.

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., after configuration changes), when it's appropriate (e.g., during setup or troubleshooting), or what to do if the test fails. With many sibling tools for managing Portainer resources, this lack of context leaves the agent guessing about optimal usage scenarios.

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