pterodactyl-mcp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that this is an 'admin action' requiring 'Application API key,' which clarifies authentication needs. It also explains the partial update behavior ('Only specify the fields you want to change - current values are preserved'). Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict but supplements with practical details.

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, followed by key behavioral details and usage guidelines in three concise sentences. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 as a destructive update operation with no output schema, the description provides strong contextual completeness: it covers purpose, usage guidelines, authentication requirements, and update behavior. However, it doesn't detail potential side effects or error conditions, which could be useful for a destructive tool, leaving a minor gap.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description mentions the fields that can be updated ('name, description, owner, or external ID'), which aligns with the schema but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond it. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 action ('Update'), the resource ('server's metadata'), and the specific fields that can be modified ('name, description, owner, or external ID'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling update_server_build by specifying that resource limits should be handled elsewhere, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 versus alternatives: it states 'For resource limits, use update_server_build' and clarifies that this is for 'admin action' requiring 'Application API key.' It also specifies that only fields to be changed should be provided, with current values preserved for unspecified fields, offering clear usage context.

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