Verda Cloud 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 'Set' (implying mutation) and 'Confirmation of the updated default' (hinting at a response), but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this affects existing instances, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place: the purpose statement is clear, and the parameter and return explanations are necessary and concise without redundancy.

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 complexity (mutation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns' note), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and parameter semantics adequately, but lacks behavioral details like auth needs or impact scope, which are crucial for a mutation tool with no 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?

With 0% schema description coverage (schema only provides title 'Script Id' and type 'string'), the description compensates by explaining that 'script_id' is 'The ID of an existing script to set as default', adding essential meaning beyond the bare schema. It clarifies the parameter's purpose and constraints, though it could specify format or sourcing 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 specific action ('Set an existing script as the default') and the target resource ('for new Verda Cloud instances'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_and_set_default_script' (which creates a new script) and 'get_instance_startup_script' (which retrieves). It uses precise verb+resource language without tautology.

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 by specifying 'an existing script' and 'for new Verda Cloud instances', helping differentiate from 'create_and_set_default_script'. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives beyond what's inferred from sibling names, such as not using it for non-script resources or when creating a script from scratch.

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