Ploi MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'get' but not explicit), potential rate limits, authentication needs, log format (e.g., text, JSON), time range defaults, or pagination. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves.

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 extremely concise with a single phrase 'Get deployment/site logs'. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the description contributes directly to the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (fetching logs likely involves data retrieval and filtering), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what logs are returned (e.g., format, content, time range), error conditions, or how it differs from similar tools. For a log-fetching tool with no structured context, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.

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, clearly documenting both parameters (server_id and site_id). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between servers and sites or typical ID sources. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get deployment/site logs' states the action (get) and resource (logs) but is vague about scope. It doesn't specify whether these are recent logs, historical logs, error logs, or all logs, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_server_logs' which might provide server-level logs instead of site-level logs.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing server and site IDs), compare to 'get_server_logs' for server-level logs, or indicate scenarios like debugging deployments versus monitoring site activity. The description alone offers no usage context.

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