Verda Cloud MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: creation of a new script, mutation of config.yaml, and effect on future deployments. However, it misses details like whether the operation is idempotent, permission requirements, or potential side effects on existing instances.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by brief elaboration and structured Arg/Return sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which covers return values), the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's dual action and parameters well, but could improve by addressing behavioral nuances like error conditions or config backup implications.

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 'name' as 'Name for the new script' and 'content' as 'Bash script content', which clarifies their roles beyond schema titles. However, it doesn't specify constraints like name uniqueness or content length limits.

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 specific action: 'Create a new startup script and set it as the default for new instances.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_startup_script' (which only creates) and 'set_default_script' (which only sets default), making the combined purpose explicit.

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 implies usage context ('for future instance deployments') and distinguishes from siblings by combining creation and default-setting. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'create_startup_script' followed by 'set_default_script', or prerequisites like checking existing scripts.

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