Foreman MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying that it fetches documentation for a 'specific' resource, implying targeted retrieval, but does not detail aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, keeping it from a score of 5.

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 that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose, 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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations covering key behavioral traits, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on parameter semantics and usage context, which could enhance completeness for an 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, with one required parameter 'resource' of type string. The description does not add any semantic details about this parameter, such as what constitutes a valid resource name or examples, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 clearly states the action ('fetches') and the target ('documentation for a specific Foreman API resource'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_foreman_dsl_docs' or 'get_foreman_dsl_docs', which appear similar, preventing a score of 5.

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 the sibling tools 'fetch_foreman_dsl_docs' or 'get_foreman_dsl_docs', which might overlap in functionality. 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.