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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Restart a server' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires admin permissions, if it's destructive (e.g., interrupts services), what the expected downtime is, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unaddressed.

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 at three words, front-loading the essential action and resource with zero wasted language. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 server restart operation (a mutation with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, impact, or response format, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 'server_id' clearly documented as 'The ID of the server to restart'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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 clearly states the action ('Restart') and resource ('a server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_server' or 'suspend_site', which would require more specific context about what 'restart' entails versus other server operations.

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. With siblings like 'suspend_site' and 'resume_site' that might relate to server state changes, there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions for using 'restart_server'.

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