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. '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.