pterodactyl-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation with potentially incomplete results. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the admin perspective, mentions the return data structure, and states the API key requirement, which are not covered by annotations. 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 usage guidance and prerequisites in subsequent sentences. Each sentence adds distinct value without redundancy, making it efficient 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 moderate complexity (single parameter, read-only operation) and the presence of annotations covering safety and completeness hints, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, usage context, and prerequisites. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on return values or pagination, though it does mention what data is returned.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'server_id' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List' and the resource 'databases attached to a server', specifying the perspective ('admin perspective') and what information is returned ('database host, name, and connection details'). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'list_client_databases' by contrasting admin vs. client-level access.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('admin perspective') and when to use an alternative ('For client-level database access, use list_client_databases instead'). It also includes a prerequisite ('Requires Application API key'), providing clear guidance on usage context and exclusions.

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