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 key behavioral traits: it's a connectivity test, uses existing authentication, makes a lightweight API call, and verifies server responsiveness. It doesn't mention rate limits, error responses, or what 'responding' entails, but covers core behavior adequately.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first states purpose and behavior, second provides crucial usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct value, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 simple connectivity test tool with 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and behavioral context. The main gap is lack of output information (what 'responding' verification returns), but otherwise covers essentials well.

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%, providing comprehensive parameter documentation. The description doesn't add parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to given the high coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 specific purpose: 'Test connectivity and system availability of Pega Infinity server using existing authentication.' It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on connectivity testing rather than case/data operations, and specifies it makes a 'lightweight API call to verify the server is responding.'

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use authenticate_pega tool first if you need to establish authentication.' This clearly indicates when to use an alternative tool (authenticate_pega) and establishes a prerequisite relationship for authentication scenarios.

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