CloudForge MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior (parsing HCL to produce a diagram and Mermaid preview) but lacks details on error handling, performance characteristics, or what the 'diagram structure' output entails. For a tool with no annotations, this is a moderate disclosure level.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (parsing HCL to produce visual outputs), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage, and output types but could benefit from more detail on the 'diagram structure' format or error cases. It's adequate but not exhaustive.

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%, with the single parameter 'hcl' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the HCL should be from '.tf files', which is minimal value. 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 tool's purpose: 'Parse existing Terraform HCL and return a diagram structure plus an inline Mermaid preview.' It specifies the verb (parse), resource (Terraform HCL), and output (diagram structure + Mermaid preview). It distinguishes from siblings like cloudforge_generate_terraform (which creates Terraform) and cloudforge_diagram_to_mermaid (which converts diagrams to Mermaid).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use when the user has .tf files and wants to visualise or understand their infrastructure.' This provides clear context for usage and implicitly excludes scenarios where users don't have Terraform files or want other operations like generating or exporting Terraform.

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