Pega DX MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a list and returns available roles, which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements (hinted in schema but not described), potential rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with authentication complexity, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently states the action, target, and purpose. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for its function. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by immediately highlighting the list-retrieval action.

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 (involving authentication via nested objects and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on authentication modes (OAuth vs. token), response format (e.g., list structure, role properties), and error handling. Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate more to ensure the agent can use it correctly.

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 fully documents both parameters (caseID and sessionCredentials). The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the format of returned roles or clarifying caseID usage. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 ('Retrieve list') and resource ('participant roles for a specific Pega case'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_participant' (single participant) and 'get_participant_role_details' (detailed role info) by focusing on listing available roles. However, it doesn't explicitly name these siblings for differentiation, preventing a perfect score.

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 mentions the tool is for 'access control and permission management,' which provides some implied context, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_participant' or 'get_participant_role_details.' There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or named alternatives stated, leaving usage decisions unclear.

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