Verda Cloud MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('A list of scripts with ID and name'), which is helpful, but lacks critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how many scripts it returns (e.g., pagination limits), or if it includes default scripts. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 very concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the purpose, and the second clarifies the return value. There's no wasted text, and it efficiently conveys key information. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the return info more seamlessly, but it's still highly efficient.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema that likely defines the return structure), the description is reasonably complete. It states what the tool does and what it returns, which covers the basics. The output schema should handle return value details, so the description doesn't need to elaborate further. For a simple list tool, this is adequate, though it could benefit from more behavioral context given the lack of annotations.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it appropriately focuses on the output. Since there are no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is justified as the description doesn't miss any parameter details.

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 the resource 'your startup scripts', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_startup_script' or 'get_instance_startup_script' by focusing on listing all scripts rather than creating or fetching a specific one. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_instances' or 'list_volumes' beyond the resource type.

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 doesn't mention when you'd want to list scripts (e.g., before creating or setting a default) or clarify that this lists all scripts without filtering, unlike 'get_instance_startup_script' which fetches a specific script for an instance. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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