Aptly 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 states the action ('Add packages') but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a mutating operation (likely yes), what happens on failure, whether it overwrites existing packages, or any rate limits/permissions needed. The description is minimal and misses key operational context.

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 purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutating tool with 3 parameters. It doesn't explain what 'Add packages' entails operationally (e.g., does it validate packages, return success/failure?), leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and results.

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 fully documents parameters (directory, files, repoName). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'uploaded files' relates to the directory parameter, but this is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter 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 ('Add packages') and target ('to a repository'), with the source specified as 'from uploaded files'. It distinguishes from siblings like aptly_list_packages (listing) or aptly_delete_uploaded_files (deleting), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like aptly_create_repo (creating vs. adding).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing uploaded files first), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like aptly_update_mirror (which might handle remote packages). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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