Fastly NGWAF 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. It mentions 'List security events' but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, any rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('List security events (attacks, blocks, etc.)') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, authentication, or output format, and while schema coverage is high, the description itself lacks context needed for effective agent use without trial-and-error.

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%, providing detailed parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value by implying filtering capabilities ('attacks, blocks, etc.') but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions or usage beyond what the schema already specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('security events') with examples of event types ('attacks, blocks, etc.'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_requests' or 'get_analytics' that might also retrieve security-related data, preventing 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. With siblings like 'search_requests' and 'get_analytics' that could overlap in functionality, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for selecting this specific listing tool.

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