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 destructive operation ('permanently removes the link'), mentions permission requirements, and specifies that both IDs must be valid. It doesn't cover rate limits, error responses, or whether the document itself is deleted vs just unlinked, but provides substantial operational context.

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 well-structured sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, behavior, and requirements with zero wasted words. The first sentence states what it does, the second covers prerequisites and constraints - ideal front-loading of 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 destructive operation with 3 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides good coverage of what the tool does, its permanent nature, and prerequisites. It could be more complete by mentioning what happens to the document after unlinking or describing the return value, but given the context, it's substantially informative.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions that 'document ID and case ID must both be valid' which reinforces schema requirements but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter usage or relationships.

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 action ('Remove a document that is linked to a specific Pega case') with precise resources (document, case). It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_attachment' by specifying it removes a link rather than deleting the document itself, and from 'delete_case' by focusing on document-case relationships.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('to remove a document linked to a case') and mentions prerequisites ('user must have appropriate permissions'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools for document/case management.

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