pterodactyl-mcp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the description specifies this is an 'admin action' and 'Requires Application API key' - important permission and authentication requirements. It doesn't contradict annotations but provides additional operational context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action and admin nature, the second lists key requirements, the third provides tool references for prerequisites. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more 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?

For a complex creation tool with 15 parameters, no output schema, and destructive annotations, the description provides good context. It covers prerequisites, authentication needs, and references to sibling tools for finding required data. While it doesn't explain return values (no output schema exists), it gives enough operational guidance for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description mentions key parameters like 'egg ID', 'owner user ID', 'allocation ID', and 'resource limits', but doesn't add significant semantic context beyond what's already well-documented in the schema. It provides high-level grouping of parameters but no additional format or constraint details.

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 ('Create a new game server'), the resource ('on the panel'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's an 'admin action'. It goes beyond just restating the name by providing context about what's being created.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Requires egg ID (from list_eggs), owner user ID (from list_users), allocation ID, and resource limits.' It also mentions alternative tools to find required information: 'Use list_eggs to find available server templates and list_nodes to find nodes with capacity.' This gives clear prerequisites and related tools.

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