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 and does well by disclosing critical behavioral traits: execution modes (synchronous vs. asynchronous), action type limitations (case-wide only), and platform-specific constraints. It doesn't mention error handling or performance implications, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by important behavioral details. Every sentence adds value, though the platform-specific execution details could be slightly more streamlined. No wasted text, but minor structural improvements possible.

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 (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides good contextual completeness. It covers execution behavior, limitations, and platform differences. However, it doesn't explain return values or error responses, which would be helpful given the absence of output schema.

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 adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, mainly reinforcing the actionID requirements and case-wide action constraint. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 tool performs case actions on multiple cases simultaneously (bulk operation), specifying the verb 'perform' and resource 'cases'. It distinguishes from siblings like perform_case_action (single case) and bulk_cases_patch (different operation type) by emphasizing bulk execution and case-wide action support.

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 usage guidance: it specifies when to use (for bulk case actions), when not to use (assignment-level actions like Transfer and Adjust Assignment SLA are not supported), and mentions platform-specific execution modes (synchronous in Infinity, asynchronous in Launchpad). This clearly differentiates it from alternatives.

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