Pega DX MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: automatic eTag fetching when omitted, default actionID (pyUpdateCaseDetails), case-wide or stage-wide local action scope, and V1 API exclusivity. However, it doesn't mention mutation consequences, permission requirements, or rate limits which would be helpful for a write operation.

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 and key differentiators. Each sentence adds value: API version context, eTag behavior, action scope. However, some sentences could be more concise, and the structure could better separate behavioral notes from usage guidelines.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good API version context and behavioral notes but lacks information about mutation consequences, error handling, response format, or permission requirements. Given the tool's complexity, more comprehensive behavioral disclosure 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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - mainly clarifying eTag auto-fetching behavior and default actionID. 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's purpose with specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a Pega case'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning 'V1 EXCLUSIVE - only available in Traditional DX API' and contrasting with 'V2 uses perform_case_action instead'. This provides clear differentiation from related tools like perform_case_action.

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 guidelines including when to use ('V1 EXCLUSIVE - only available in Traditional DX API'), when not to use ('V2 uses perform_case_action instead'), and alternatives ('perform_case_action'). It also mentions prerequisites like eTag handling and default behavior for actionID.

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