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 that the tool 'wait[s] for it to complete' and 'Returns status when done', which adds behavioral context beyond the basic action. However, it lacks details on permissions required, potential side effects (e.g., downtime), rate limits, or error handling, which are critical for a deployment tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action ('Trigger deployment for a site'), followed by behavioral details. Both sentences earn their place by specifying the waiting behavior and return value, with zero waste.

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 complexity of a deployment tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and return behavior but lacks completeness in areas like error cases, output format details, or integration with sibling tools (e.g., 'get_site' for site IDs).

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as how to obtain server_id or site_id, or their relationships.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Trigger deployment') and resource ('a site'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'deploy_project' by specifying it's for sites. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'resume_site' or 'suspend_site', which are related to site states but not 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a site ID from 'list_sites' or 'get_site'), compare to 'deploy_project' (for projects vs. sites), or indicate when not to use it (e.g., if a site is already deploying).

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