Ploi MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 'wait for completion' behavior which is valuable context. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if deployment fails - significant gaps for a deployment tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence explains what the tool does, and the second provides clear usage guidance. Every word earns its place in this efficiently structured description.

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?

For a deployment tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and usage guidance but lacks important behavioral context. It doesn't explain what 'deploy' actually means operationally, what gets deployed, or what the expected outcomes are. The description is adequate but has clear gaps for this type of tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('deploy the current project'), the mechanism ('.ploi.json config file'), and the behavior ('wait for completion'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling 'deploy_site' by specifying it's for project deployment rather than site deployment.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'when the user says 'deploy' without specifying a site.' This provides clear guidance on the specific scenario where this tool should be selected over alternatives like 'deploy_site'.

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