Foreman MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, but the description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies the polling behavior (continuous until terminal state), defines terminal states ('stopped or paused'), mentions background execution for long-running tasks, and implies a blocking or monitoring operation. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by additional context in a second sentence. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and outcome, the second adds execution mode. No wasted words or 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 tool's complexity (polling with timeout and interval), annotations cover safety aspects, but there is no output schema. The description explains the return value ('final task state') and behavioral traits, making it fairly complete. However, it could benefit from more detail on error handling or what 'terminal state' entails beyond 'stopped or paused'.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does not mention any parameters explicitly, but it implies the need for a task_id (to poll) and context for timeout/poll_interval (via 'long-running tasks' and polling). However, it lacks details on parameter meanings, defaults, or units, leaving gaps compensated only by the schema's structural info.

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 specific action ('Polls a Foreman task'), the resource ('Foreman task'), the termination condition ('until it reaches a terminal state'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on polling rather than direct API calls or documentation fetching. It explicitly mentions the return value ('Returns the final task state').

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for monitoring tasks until completion, with support for long-running tasks via background execution. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., call_foreman_api_get might be for one-time status checks).

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