Fastly NGWAF MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Get analytics data' which implies a read operation, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or what happens when parameters like corpName/siteName aren't provided (though the schema indicates they use context defaults). The description lacks crucial behavioral context for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 at just 7 words, which is efficient for its length. However, it's arguably too brief given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations). The parenthetical examples help but don't provide complete context. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose, but could benefit from more complete guidance.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what analytics data is returned, how results are formatted, whether there's pagination, or what the 'etc.' encompasses. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to effectively use this tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enums. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'top attacks, timeseries' which aligns with the 'type' parameter enum, but doesn't explain the relationship between parameters (e.g., that groupBy is for top_attacks, tags/rollup are for timeseries). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool 'Get analytics data' which provides a basic verb+resource combination, but it's vague about what specific analytics data is retrieved. The parenthetical '(top attacks, timeseries, etc.)' gives some examples but doesn't clearly define the scope or differentiate this tool from potential sibling analytics tools (though none are listed in the sibling tools).

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, context requirements, or comparison with other tools that might retrieve similar data. The sibling tools list includes various management and retrieval tools, but no explicit analytics alternatives are mentioned, leaving usage context unclear.

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