Pega DX MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions returning 'participant details including personal information, contact details, and optional UI resources', but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like authentication requirements (implied by sessionCredentials parameter), rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description adds minimal context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by details about return values. It's efficient with zero waste, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage guidance from return details.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a read operation. It covers the purpose and return content but lacks behavioral context (e.g., authentication, errors) and detailed output structure. For a tool with 4 parameters including nested objects, it should provide more guidance on usage and limitations.

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 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'case ID and participant ID' and 'optional UI resources for form display', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the parameter 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific participant in a Pega case', specifying it requires case ID and participant ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_case_participants' (which lists participants) by focusing on a single participant's details.

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 implies usage when you need detailed participant information, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'get_case_participants' for a list or 'get_participant_role_details' for role-specific data. It mentions the 'viewType' parameter for UI resources, providing some context.

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