MCP Atlas Owner

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

Annotations declare the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description adds that each action returns a specific profile kind (listing, keyword matches, contract, projection result). However, it does not explain what an Atlas profile is or disclose additional behavior like pagination or output defaults beyond what the schema already provides.

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 concise and each line serves a function, but it is formatted as a terse command help block without an introductory sentence. It is not overlong, but the lack of prose makes it less readable and less front-loaded with purpose.

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 (four actions, nested parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It provides action examples but omits context about how actions relate, the semantics of targets like 'atlas.types' or 'atlas.index', and how it fits with sibling tools, leaving an agent with gaps in understanding.

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 already documents all payload parameters and nested fields with descriptions. The description's example payloads illustrate common combinations (e.g., keywords for search, target and params for call), but they do not add significant meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions.

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 is a list of action examples (list, search, describe, call) with sample payloads, implying the tool queries Atlas profiles. However, it lacks a concise statement of what the tool does and does not differentiate it from sibling tools like mcp.arango or mcp.tool.database.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool or how to choose among the four actions. The examples show usage patterns but do not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or when to prefer another tool.

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