Pega DX MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'returns participant role metadata with optional UI resources' but doesn't describe authentication requirements (though hinted in sessionCredentials parameter), rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the role doesn't exist. For a tool with authentication complexity and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 concise with two sentences that directly address purpose and return value. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the second sentence could be more tightly integrated with the first for better flow.

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 tool with 4 parameters (including a complex nested authentication object), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address authentication requirements, error handling, response format, or how to interpret the returned metadata. The complexity demands more contextual guidance than provided.

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 no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain caseID format constraints, participantRoleID sourcing, or viewType implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

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 detailed information') and resource ('specific participant role in a Pega case'), with specific scope details ('role configuration, permissions, and user details'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_participant' (general participant info) and 'get_participant_roles' (list of roles) by focusing on detailed metadata for a single role.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_participant' or 'get_participant_roles'. It mentions optional UI resources but doesn't explain when to choose 'form' vs 'none' viewType beyond what's in the schema. No prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tool comparisons are provided.

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