Foreman MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'GET action' entails in practice. However, it does not contradict the annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present.

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, 'Calls GET action on Foreman API.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though this brevity contributes to its inadequacy in other dimensions.

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 tool with three required parameters (including a nested object), 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations beyond basic hints, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how parameters are used, or any operational context, making it inadequate for effective 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 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (resource, action, params) are documented in the schema. The description provides no information about what these parameters mean, their expected values, or how they interact, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Calls GET action on Foreman API' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'call_foreman_api_get' with minimal additional information. It specifies the verb ('Calls') and resource ('Foreman API') but lacks specificity about what this actually accomplishes or how it differs from sibling tools like fetch_foreman_dsl_docs or get_foreman_api_resource_docs.

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. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like poll_task or get_foreman_dsl_docs, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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