Vultr MCP

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 tool returns a 'List of gateways with the specified status,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether it's a safe operation. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be more integrated into a single narrative flow.

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, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral transparency, usage guidelines, and details on return format or error handling. For a tool with one required parameter and no structured support, this is insufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining the 'status' parameter as 'Status to filter by (e.g., "active", "pending"),' providing examples and clarifying its role. However, it doesn't document all possible status values or constraints, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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: 'List storage gateways by status.' This specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('storage gateways'), and filtering criterion ('by status'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list' or 'list_by_region', though the status filtering is a clear distinction.

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 mentions the 'status' parameter but doesn't specify valid status values beyond examples, nor does it indicate prerequisites, dependencies, or when other listing tools might be more appropriate.

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