Tembo MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Ask a question to Tembo Docs,' which implies a read-only query operation, but doesn't clarify if it's a simple lookup, a semantic search, or an AI-generated response. It lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or potential errors, leaving significant gaps in understanding 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 a single, clear sentence ('Ask a question to Tembo Docs') that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action and target.

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 (a query tool with no output schema and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what kind of answers to expect, how results are formatted, or any behavioral traits like response time or data sources. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to help the agent understand the tool's full scope and limitations.

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 the single parameter 'query' well-documented in the schema itself ('The ask query. For example, "how to create a Tembo instance"'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as formatting tips or scope limitations. 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 clearly states the action ('Ask a question') and the target resource ('Tembo Docs'), which is specific enough to understand the tool's function. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from potential sibling tools like 'search_docs' or 'query_knowledge_base' that might exist in other contexts, though none are present in the provided sibling list.

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 an active Tembo instance), exclusions (e.g., not for technical support), or how it differs from other tools like 'get_instance' or 'get_all_instances' that might provide related information. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the return value looks like. For a creation tool with 9 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 just 4 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. While it may be too brief for adequate completeness, it earns full marks for conciseness as every word carries essential meaning.

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 (9 parameters, 7 required, creation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a Tembo instance is, what the parameters control, what happens after creation, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool that presumably provisions infrastructure resources, this minimal description leaves critical gaps for an AI agent.

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 only 11% (just one parameter has a description), so the description must compensate but doesn't. It mentions no parameters at all, leaving all 9 parameters (including 7 required ones) without semantic context beyond their schema definitions. The description doesn't explain what 'cpu', 'memory', 'stack_type', or other parameters mean in the context of creating a Tembo instance.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new Tembo instance'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'delete_instance' and 'patch_instance' by specifying creation rather than modification or deletion. However, it doesn't specify what a Tembo instance is or differentiate from other creation-related tools that might exist in the broader context.

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 (like needing an org_id), when creation is appropriate versus using existing instances, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'restore_instance' or 'patch_instance'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes an instance, implying a destructive, irreversible action, but lacks details on permissions required, confirmation steps, effects on associated resources, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the key action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with well-documented parameters.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as the consequences of deletion, required permissions, or what the tool returns upon success or failure, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.

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 ('instance_id' and 'org_id') with their purposes. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 ('Delete') and the resource ('an existing Tembo instance'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'patch_instance' or 'restore_instance', but the verb 'Delete' is specific enough to convey the core function.

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 'patch_instance' or 'restore_instance', nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions for deletion. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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

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 states 'Get attributes for all apps', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if no apps exist. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Get attributes for all apps'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. It appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'attributes' include, the return format, or any behavioral aspects like error handling or data freshness. For a tool that retrieves all apps, more context on output and usage 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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline for a parameterless tool. No additional value is required beyond stating the purpose.

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 attributes for all apps' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all apps'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'attributes' specifically means. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_app' (singular) and 'get_all_instances' (different resource), but lacks specificity about the scope or nature of the attributes.

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 like 'get_app' (for a single app) or 'get_all_instances' (for instances). The description implies it's for retrieving all apps, but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or comparative use cases with sibling tools.

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

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. It states the action but does not describe traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list structure, pagination). This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or return values, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively in context with its siblings.

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 'org_id' documented as 'Organization id for the request'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, but the schema provides adequate baseline information.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('all Tembo instances in an organization'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_instance' or 'get_all_apps', which would be needed for 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 such as 'get_instance' (for a single instance) or 'get_all_apps' (for apps instead of instances). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage.

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

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 this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't describe what 'attributes' are returned, whether there are permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or how the tool behaves when the app doesn't exist. For a 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'attributes' are returned, the format of the response, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool that presumably returns structured data about an app, more context is needed to be complete.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'type' as 'The app type to get details for'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, maintaining the baseline score of 3.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('attributes of a single App'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'get_all_apps' by specifying 'single App', but doesn't explicitly contrast with other similar tools like 'get_instance' or 'get_instance_schema'.

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 when this tool is appropriate compared to 'get_all_apps' for multiple apps, or 'get_instance' for instance details, nor does it specify any prerequisites or context for usage.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns partial or full instance data, or what happens if the instance doesn't exist. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it 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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly 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 has 2 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and moderate schema coverage (50%), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what data is returned, error conditions, or how this differs from sibling tools. For a retrieval operation in a system with multiple instance-related tools, more context is needed to guide proper usage.

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 50% (only 'org_id' has a description), and the description adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain what 'instance_id' represents or provide context about parameter relationships. Since schema coverage is moderate, the baseline is 3, but the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented 'instance_id' parameter.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('an existing Tembo instance'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_all_instances' or 'get_instance_schema', which would require more specificity about what exactly is retrieved (metadata vs. full configuration vs. schema).

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 'get_all_instances' (for listing) or 'get_instance_schema' (for schema details). It also doesn't mention prerequisites or context for when this retrieval operation is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or any error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe use.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (a tool to retrieve schema data) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the json-schema contains, how it's formatted, or what the return value looks like, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it 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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it could briefly mention that no inputs are required. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as it doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('json-schema for an instance'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_instance' or 'get_all_instances' which might also retrieve instance-related data but of different types.

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, context for needing the schema, or how it differs from other 'get' operations like 'get_instance' or 'get_all_instances' in the sibling list.

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

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. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't describe what happens during the update (e.g., whether the instance restarts, if changes are immediate, permission requirements, or potential downtime). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action and resource, 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?

For a mutation tool with 9 parameters, low schema coverage (11%), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the update process, parameter meanings, expected outcomes, or error conditions, leaving too much undefined for reliable agent 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?

Schema description coverage is only 11% (only org_id has a description), so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'attributes' generally but doesn't explain what the 9 parameters represent, their relationships, or which are optional versus required beyond what the schema minimally indicates.

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 ('Update attributes') and target resource ('existing Tembo instance'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_instance and delete_instance. However, it doesn't specify which attributes can be updated or the scope of changes, making it slightly less specific than ideal.

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 create_instance or restore_instance. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('restore') but doesn't explain what restoration entails (e.g., is it destructive to current data, does it require specific permissions, what are rate limits or side effects?). This lack of detail is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 sentence, 'Restore a Tembo instance', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While this brevity may under-specify the tool, it earns a high score for conciseness as every word directly contributes to the core purpose without redundancy.

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 (3 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke this tool without additional inference or trial-and-error.

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 low at 33%, with only 'org_id' having a description. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the name 'restore', failing to explain what 'instance_name', 'org_id', or the nested 'restore' object (with 'instance_id' and 'recovery_target_time') mean in context. This doesn't compensate for the schema's gaps, leaving most parameters poorly documented.

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 'Restore a Tembo instance' clearly states the verb ('restore') and resource ('Tembo instance'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify what 'restore' means in this context (e.g., from backup, from deletion, to a previous state) or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'patch_instance' or 'create_instance', leaving some ambiguity about its specific function.

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 deleted or failed instance), exclusions (e.g., cannot restore while instance is running), or relationships to siblings like 'delete_instance' or 'get_instance', leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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