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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: automatic eTag fetching when omitted, validation of case/action IDs, processing of calculation requests, and return of updated field values and states. It also mentions support for specific operations like merging content updates and applying page instructions, though doesn't cover error conditions or performance characteristics.

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 moderately concise but could be more front-loaded. The first sentence clearly states the core purpose, but subsequent sentences contain some redundancy (e.g., mentioning API validation and return values that could be inferred). While informative, some sentences don't earn their place as efficiently as they could, making it slightly verbose for a tool description.

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 complex tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but not comprehensive context. It covers the main operation, eTag behavior, and processing scope, but lacks details about error responses, performance considerations, or specific examples of when this tool should be preferred over alternatives. Given the complexity, more complete guidance would be beneficial.

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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions eTag auto-fetching behavior and that calculations must contain fields or whens arrays, but these details are largely covered in the parameter descriptions. 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('recalculate calculated fields & whens') and identifies the target resource ('current case action form'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'perform_case_action' or 'refresh_case_action' by focusing specifically on field and condition recalculation rather than general action execution or refresh 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?

The description implies usage context ('based on current form state and user input') and mentions an alternative approach for eTag handling, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'refresh_case_action' or 'perform_case_action'. It provides some operational guidance but lacks clear when/when-not differentiation among sibling tools.

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