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 but only states the basic operation. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what format the returned list takes. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context needed for safe invocation.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste. Front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundant information.

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 2 parameters (one complex nested object), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'related cases' means in this context, what data is returned, authentication requirements, or error handling. The minimal description leaves too many gaps for reliable agent use.

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. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'case ID' but doesn't provide format examples or clarify the optional sessionCredentials parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'list of related cases' with the scope 'for a specific case based on case ID'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_case' (single case) and 'get_cases' (multiple cases), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'relate_cases' or 'delete_related_case' which are write operations.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites like authentication, nor does it clarify if this should be used instead of other case-related tools like 'get_case_descendants' or 'get_case_ancestors' for relationship queries.

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