Foreman MCP Server

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

Annotations cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world hints, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by specifying that it 'reads from cache' and returns 'Markdown format', which are behavioral traits not in annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations, as 'reads' aligns with readOnlyHint=true.

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 front-loads key information (action, resource, format, parameter role) with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) but no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the core purpose and some behavior, but lacks details on output structure, error handling, or sibling differentiation, making it minimally viable.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'based on provided section', which adds meaning by linking the parameter to filtering documentation by section, but doesn't detail what sections are available or their format. This provides some semantics but is incomplete, aligning with the baseline for partial compensation.

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 'reads from cache and returns' and the resource 'documentation of available macros for template writing in Markdown format', which is specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_foreman_dsl_docs' or 'get_foreman_api_resource_docs', which appear similar, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 'fetch_foreman_dsl_docs' or 'get_foreman_api_resource_docs', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only implies usage through the parameter 'section', but lacks explicit context for selection.

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