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 mentions the return data (IDs, names, providers, last-modified dates), which is helpful, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes key return details. There is no wasted verbiage, and every part of the sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks output schema, so the description's mention of return fields is helpful, but it does not cover behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling. For a list tool with no annotations, it should provide more context on how results are structured or limited.

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 the 'limit' parameter with its default value. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as constraints or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('saved diagrams for the current user'), and specifies the scope ('for the current user'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cloudforge_recent_diagrams' by focusing on all saved diagrams rather than recent ones, and from 'cloudforge_get_diagram' by listing multiple items rather than fetching a single one.

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 for retrieving saved diagrams, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cloudforge_recent_diagrams' or 'cloudforge_get_diagram'. It provides context ('for the current user') but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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