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 the instance can be restarted later, which is useful context, but doesn't disclose required permissions, whether shutdown is immediate or graceful, potential data loss, or error conditions. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, followed by separate Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has an output schema (covering return values) and a simple parameter, the description is minimally complete. However, as a destructive operation with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context about shutdown implications, permissions, or error handling.

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%, but the description explicitly documents the single parameter 'instance_id' with a brief explanation. However, it doesn't add format details, validation rules, or examples beyond what the schema's type and title provide.

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 ('shutdown') and resource ('a running instance'), and distinguishes it from permanent deletion by noting 'can be restarted later'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_instance' or 'start_instance' beyond the restart implication.

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 when an instance needs to be stopped temporarily rather than permanently deleted, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. 'delete_instance' or 'start_instance'. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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