Verda Cloud MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('start') and return ('confirmation that start was initiated'), but lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's asynchronous, potential costs, rate limits, or what happens if the instance isn't stopped. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the 'Returns' statement could be slightly more informative (e.g., mentioning what format the confirmation takes).

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 moderate complexity (starting instances), no annotations, and an output schema that presumably covers return values, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the parameter and basic behavior but misses important context like permissions, async nature, or error conditions that would be needed for robust use.

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 description explicitly documents the single parameter 'instance_id' and its purpose ('The ID of the instance to start'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's 0% coverage. Since there's only one parameter and the description fully explains it, this earns a high score despite the low schema coverage.

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 ('Start') and resource ('a stopped instance'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'shutdown_instance' or 'deploy_spot_instance' beyond the basic verb, which prevents a perfect score.

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 like 'deploy_spot_instance' or 'shutdown_instance'. It mentions the instance must be 'stopped', but this is implied by the action rather than explicit usage advice. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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