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 does well by explaining the eTag auto-fetch behavior, optimistic locking requirement, and return format ('returns updated participant details with optional UI resources'). However, it lacks details about error conditions, rate limits, permission requirements, or whether the operation is idempotent, which are important for a mutation tool.

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 in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds useful information about eTag behavior, update scope, requirements, and return values. There's some redundancy with the schema (e.g., listing specific properties like 'contact details' that are already documented), but overall it's efficient.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate coverage of the core operation, eTag handling, and return format. However, it lacks details about error responses, side effects, and specific behavioral constraints that would be important for safe usage, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 value beyond the schema by mentioning that updates are partial ('Only provided properties will be updated') and that eTag is auto-fetched if omitted. This meets the baseline expectation 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 action ('Update participant details'), target resource ('in a Pega case'), and required identifiers ('by case ID and participant ID'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'create_case_participant' (creation) and 'delete_participant' (deletion) by focusing on modification of existing participants.

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 for when to use this tool (updating existing participants in Pega cases) and mentions an important prerequisite ('Requires an eTag value for optimistic locking'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as 'create_case_participant' for new participants.

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